We have a BET !

[donzaemon]

well folks,
we finally have a bet.
I have finally gotten don to agree to something after several unbearable days of weaseling, bobbing, ducking, running, etc.
So?  what have we agreed upon ?   Let me give you a little history first.

Nihi has claimed that there are certain situations where the dice can be 'called' on fibs (called means being able to 'predict' what the numbers will be before rolling)
don disagreed with that. Don thinks that NIHI is basically full of sh** but would not put his money behind it.  Generally the trust between both parties has been severed by events in the past so there there was no hope for resolution, in fact, the discussion died and was effectively over.... then....  all of the sudden the heavens parted and a loud voice called out: "WHAT IF WE HAD BACKERS WHO WOULD BET FOR YOU" ! and alas .. the fibs community smiled.

So ... where were we ... ah,  Backers!  now I decided I would bet for NIHI to keep the animosity to a low,  the only problem was that we could not agree on our odds.
first of all,  since I was backing NIHI I wanted to be on NIHI.  That means whenever nihi calls one of his rolls and is right (I'll refer to that as a 'hit' from now on) I win some money.
and whenever he 'misses' or calls a roll and is NOT right ... don win's some money.  

So, how much of this money should we win ?  well the dice tell us that for a regular combination to come up there is a 1:18  chance,  for <any double> to come up there is a 1:6 chance, and for any specific double there is a 1:36 chance of rolling it ....  now logic would tell you that if the dice were fair then the only fair bet is on these ratios.  Both don and I were trying to get the best of it so we were changing these numbers to 'our side fo the board'  and could not come to an agreement.

Well, after a very long time of that I'd had enough and offered 'true odds' for any rolls .. I figured that if don believed NIHI was wrong he would like to see it and the only way to ever get there was to be 'fair' between both of us ... don could not agree to that ... he could only state I have stated my proposition and you have to agree with me or leave it etc.

The next day the discussion started again. and in the midst of my trying to get him to agree to 'true odds'  NIHI said something about paying 10:1 for his 17 for 1 calls. (18:1)
Then, don said he would do it!   So I asked again, and don said 'yes'  He confirmed seperately 3 times that he would pay 1 for any rolls nihi missed missed and be paid 10 (10:1) for any rolls that nihi called.  I thought that this was strange because he is winning when NIHI calls and is right... it seemed like the opposite side of what he originally set out to do but to my surprise I specifically noted this and confirmed with don.  He clearly agreed 2 times that he would pay 1 for missed calls and be paid 10  for correct calls (10:1). (a number call is calling both dice ie. a 4-3,  5-2,  3-3  etc. it doesn not include a combined number as in say 'a 9')

So there we have it folks ... don is betting ON nihi at 10:1 for any number called.  if NIHI decides he wants to make a non-number call or any call outside of what we have covered, I will settle for 'true odds' on anything, including combination numbers, or, in fact, any calculatable circumstance with a ratio of 40:1 or less. in other words if NIHI calls <any doubles> I will pay don 6 while receiving 1 etc. but don can exclude these bets if he desires.

The only thing I could think is that don got confused and thought he was taking the side against nihi ... but in order to avoid that possibility I confirmed it 3 seperate times ... and 3 times don clearly said he would receive 10 when nihi hits and pay 1 when he misses. So there cannot be any confusion, except for mine which is because I don't understand why he would change sides and take those odds. but he clearly agreed,  and at the same time, he commanded me to go to the trouble of writing it up on fibsboard so there would be no misunderstanding.  Well I have gone to the trouble, everything is clear, and he cannot weasel out of this one.

SO WE HAVE A BET ...  don is betting ON NIHI's called numbers at 10:1,  he will be paid 10x for every time NIHI is right.   anything else NIHI decides to call will either go out at true odds, or,  if don speaks up and claims 'no bet' on anything other than regular number calls that is OK also.  

the bet ammount is $10 ...   so don will receive $100 each time NIHI 'hits' his calls and I will receive $10 for each time don is wrong ....

all NIHI has to do is get more than 3 of his calls right in order to sink me. So it's scary from this side .. having to pay odds etc.  I could lose up to $3000 where don can lose no more that $300  ...  

The bet conditions are a fixed number of wagers.  30 seperate calls.  NIHI can choose when and where he calls ... but either me or don must be present for each call along with a minimum of two other witnesses who are not playing for a call to be legitamate.

and don...  I can't believe you finally agreed,  I had taken you for a weasel,  I just hope you are good for the money if you lose ... I still have my doubts about that.

[don]

Well, that was amusing.  It's also the reason I suggested you try to carefully formulate your bet, and consult with NIHI.  You are leaving out my comments to you, donzaemon.  That's why I suggested you try and put it in print here.

For your information, you haven't put into print in public any bet I'd take.  Also, you should know that there's a difference between 1:6 and 1/6 when talking about odds, gambling and payoffs.

If your intention is to insult with your post here, you've done that well but I think you insulted the wrong person.   If your intention was to clarify a bet, please try again.

[donzaemon]

OK don,
That's exactly why I clarified it .. because I knew there would be a problem.

I agree I wrote fast and used the wrong notation. and therefore my numbers were off from what you wrote in the chat window. 1:10 is the same as 1/9 and the same as 11 for 1.  
also I have just noticed I said 17 for 1 where I should have said 1:17 or 19 for 1.  So to alleviate further confusion.  The bet we have agreed on in the chat window stands. It shall be adjusted from what I wrote above to the correct ratios that you have stated in the chat window by 'fixing' my notation according to the above.

:::::

the original bet you agreed to was stated as 10-1 or 10:1. This is what you agreed to in the chat window so to adjust to your conventions that would be a 9/1 bet.   so you get paid $90 every time NIHI hits a call.  I will get paid $10 every time he misses one.

The rest of the content should not need adjusting. except for the 40:1 cap I put on any 'true odds',  outside of the scope, bets ...  I will, now,  ban all 'true odds' bets and stick with just dice combinations (unless you REALLY want them, this is more along the lines of what NIHI believes he can do anyway) so with that said a <any double> call is not valid and can not be bet upon.    

So we are simply left with the original be that you have already agreed to 10:1 for any specific roll.   You are paid $90 whenever he hits ..  I am paid $10 whenever he misses.

If this is too compilcated for you to understand I can write up a table for you that has each situation so you can point your finger and figure it out.

This is what was agreed upon, but again, it seems strange you would switch sides like that but I'll let you do it just to see the outcome of this supposed calling technique.

[don]

We've agreed on no bet that I know of, nor have I seen any bet description here that approaches being worthy of comment.  There was never any agreement in any "chat window".

[diane]

Was that a xxxxxx just ran past??  

[donzaemon]

Don,
 It looks like you screwed yourself into a hole again.
I did not want or plan to write this up on fibsboard.  I was at your utter insistance that I did. The same time you agreed to the bet, you insisted that I write it up. Now you're blindly attacking me in the chat room. I'm fine with letting you off the hook and pretending it never happened and actually I fully expected you to weasel out after seeing how you weaseled out of two other propositions on fibs. (not including the cribbage bet I heard about because I don't know enough details about that one)  If you do bet and lose I don't expect to get paid either. Your track record is not good in that department as well. So frankly I don't want to bet when there is not much upside to it. BUT you insisted, so I wrote it up.  If I hadn't you would have surely accused ME of backing out. So I felt forced to take some of my valuable time and waste it on you. If you want to get out now it's fine ...  and I will make it clear that you are NOT a welcher in this particular case because the bet was cancelled before any of the conditions for it have begun. BUT the title of 'xxxxxx' stands firm.  So, even though, there is at least one recorded case where you overtly welched this will not add to them but I'm certainly going to call you a xxxxxx.
 As far as I'm concerned, this bet IS off .. you have more gibberish than I can handle and I can only assume that you either misread something or got something backwards in your head before agreeing anyway because the bet you agreed to was pretty stupid. Don't try to persuade me to post other bets on fibsboard. Just try to remember, if you agree to stupid bets like this be careful. I'm not a bookmaker or professional gambler but there are plenty of 'legbreakers' and shady characters out there that you don't want to pull this sxxx with. My advice to you is DON'T AGREE TO THESE THINGS IF YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON FOLLOWING THROUGH.

Oh, and try to stay on topic next time we're talking about race-counts.

[Zorba]

well the dice tell us that for a regular combination to come up there is a 1:18  chance

There's 36 combinations of dice rolls, so a specific combination (1-6 is not 6-1 in such a case) happens 1/36.

There's 21 permutations (order is irrelevant now, as in backgammon play).

6 of them are doubles and each has a 1/36 chance.

15 of them are non-doubles and each of them has a 1/18 chance.

So, if the dice are random, it's twice as easy to call non-doubles.

Assuming the caller therefore(?) wil always call non-doubles with probability 1/18 , the break-even odds should be 17:1.

That's the vaguely interesting math. The rest of this thread is extremely boring, rehashing the old don controversy again.

[socksey]

Was that a xxxxxx just ran past??

Keep the flaming to Fibs, not to Fibsboard, please.

socksey



"The Stones, I love the Stones. I watch them whenever I can. Fred, Barney..." Steven Wright.

[donzaemon]

My numbers and notation may be quite wrong.
Don should be in here correcting them so that we have something to work from.
What he clearly agreed to was 10:1. In my experience that is equivalent to true on 1/11 but from what don was saying in the chats he led me to believe it went the other way, to 9, so, that being better for me when I'm the one paying the odds,  9 it is.  He won't clarify in posts and has resorted to harassing and attacking me in the chats so I am done trying to pin him to his original confirmation of 10:1 for calling any specific number.  Again, I don't know why he would agree to this but he did.  If he will correct to 'don numbers' on fibsboard rather than just the chatroom maybe we can come to an agreement whether the notation is conventional or not... but I think we are past that ... it seems we are at a gureilla warfare level now .. attack in the chat room and run.