Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

8 bronze badges
The problem states, "If I buy two tickets with different numbers" – msinghal Jul 22 '15 at 6:40
Correct. I just wanted to clarify this explicitly, since this apparently causes the confusion in the internet the OP was writing about... – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 7:38
So let me get this right. If I have a 1 in 14 million of chance of winning the lottery, if I buy a further ticket with a different sequence of numbers to the first one for the same draw my chance of winning is slashed to 1 in 7 million? – Rickie Jul 22 '15 at 8:16
Yes, that is correct. – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 8:23

[beninho]

If you buy a lottery ticket at odds of 1/14,000,000 and you buy another lottery ticket, therefore doubling your chance of winning your odds take that into account.

"Yes, you do double your chance of winning. There are (496) different possible draws. The probability of winning with one ticket is the chance that the 6 drawn balls are one specific combination, i.e. 1(496). With two tickets, there are two winning combinations, so the probability is 2(496)
Basically, the reason it is doubled is because winning one ticket and winning the other ticket are mutually exclusive, i.e. you can't win both tickets (note the problem statement says "different tickets"). If there was a chance of winning both, the chance would be less than doubled."]

Copied from the link I attached - I've not done the maths.

There's all sorts of conflicting stuff on that link and what relevance does 496 have to do with anything? Is it missing some notation?

Thats just the maths sum, it was badly copy and pasted.

[Soul Requiem]

Has to be said that odds don't apply to the Lottery but the chance calculations I've given are correct.

[super_realist]

Has to be said that odds don't apply to the Lottery but the chance calculations I've given are correct.

I think that's where we were disagreeing.

[Soul Requiem]

If you buy two tickets your chance of winning does double hence the 1 in 22.5mil.

[McLaren]

Has to be said that odds don't apply to the Lottery but the chance calculations I've given are correct.

I think that's where we were disagreeing.

If it is then its worse than I thought. I gave you what the odds calculation would be and the number is the same for 2/14m and 1/7m.

[navyblueshorts]

[BlueCoverman]

My brain hurts...

[McLaren]

So football, f1 and now maths added to the list of things super is clueless about.

[I'm never wrong]

I think I have the answer to this. (It kept me awake). If you buy two tickets, you have doubled your chances because at that point, the winning numbers are unknown, so EACH ticket has an equal chance of winning. As soon as you start checking the winning numbers against each individual ticket then the odds change. So its a question of timing. Even if the winning numbers have already been decided, when you buy two tickets you have doubled your chances. It is only when the numbers are checked do they change.

The important thing to remember is that when choosing the numbers or tickets AT THAT POINT THE RESULT IS NOT KNOWN, What Super is saying is that when the nunber or ticket is chosen it is checked each time against a known result. This us not how it happens.

[westisbest]

I’m still half pished, reading that was confusing.

I have a William Hill app. I bet almost every weekend on the football. 10/12 teams to score. Normally put £10 on.

Bet on rugby. First try scorer.

I enjoy it. For me makes soccer Saturday more enjoyable when I have a bet on.

Last time I won was October half term. £250.

I’ll put my bets on now for tomorrow.

[I'm never wrong]

I'll give it another go by means of two different, but similar scenarios. A club runs a raffle. There are 10 numbers to pick in each scenario. Only one number is the winning number. Each ticket is unique.
So scenario 1. A person goes to buy a ticket. He has a 1 in 10 chance of winning. He buys one ticket. The club then tell him whether he has won or not. Say he loses. He then buys another ticket, now he has a 1 in 9 chance of winning. Repeat. Odds reduce each time a (losing) ticket is purchased. This is Supers argument.
Scenario 2. First person goes into buy a ticket. He has 1 in 10 chance of winning. Club do not tell him he has won or lost until all tickets sold. So he buys another ticket. Odds increase each time he buys a ticket. Each ticket has an equal chance of winning because the result is not known (even if the winning number is decided) until the winning number is "tested" against the ticket. This is the lottery scenario because nobody knows what the winning number is when the ticket is bought.

[McLaren]

INW

But scenario 1 does not exist for a lottery. There is no way to buy subsequent tickets where information has been revealed.


I think what is causing super an issue is he is not getting that doubling your chances by buying two tickets, and going from 1/14m to 1/7m, are still both tiny numbers. Yes doubling your chances sounds good but not if you have gone from one tiny chance to another.


How badly would it go if we tried to introduce the Monty Hall problem to Super?

[I'm never wrong]

INW

But scenario 1 does not exist for a lottery.

Agreed Mac.
As for the Monty Hall problem, if doctors and professors of maths didn't get it, you can't expect me to get it either.

[dynamark]

ive turned my brain off
Im pretty sure the payout on lottery monies coming in is around 50% going out so its not a very good bet in comparison to roulette or even the gee gees.But you are supporting the local yoof club or some such worthy cause.I am sure I have more chance of finding a Roman treasure hoard in the back garden so got to go digging to get on with.

[navyblueshorts]

I think I have the answer to this. (It kept me awake). If you buy two tickets,  you have doubled your chances because at that point, the winning numbers are unknown, so EACH ticket has an equal chance of winning. As soon as you start checking the winning numbers against each individual ticket then the odds change. So its a question of timing. Even if the winning numbers have already been decided, when you buy two tickets you have doubled your chances. It is only when the numbers are checked do they change.

The important thing to remember is that when choosing the numbers or tickets AT THAT POINT THE RESULT IS NOT KNOWN, What Super is saying is that when the nunber or ticket is chosen it is checked each time against a known result. This us not how it happens.

Yep. Probability etc not my area, but seems we're talking about independent events here, whereas some are assuming dependence.

[McLaren]

Navy, you are being kind. I think some people are just terrible at maths.

[beninho]

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/dec/28/the-kieran-trippier-case-and-why-some-betting-markets-should-not-be-allowed?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

The Trippier suspension waa mentioned which turned into a gambling debate. Anyway, seems he is very hard done by. Dont think there is anything it seems, that he was betting or involved in it.

[McLaren]

I read that article but it's not clear if that is just his interpretation of what happened or whether the authorities think there is more to it. Seems harsh though if the situation is as described in Glenndennings article.

[beninho]

Trippier denied seven alleged breaches of FA Rule E8(1)(b), but four were found proven during a personal hearing.

Rule E8(1)(b) states that a participant must not provide to any person, any information relating to football which the participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time.

Found that in another. It all sounds ridiculous.

[McLaren]

It does feel like the only people harmed were the betting firms. And quite frankly would anyone care if they went out of business never mind lose a few quid on a Trippier transfer bet?

[pedro]

You’ve read too much Machiavelli mac.

It’s basically the same rules that apply to insider trading on the stock market. Even if we’re talking small money you have to protect the integrity of that particular market, personal gains or not.

Just like CEO’s and other execs I would assume professional football players are on some sort of “insider list” and that they have been made aware of their obligations cf betting. And since they are paid more than top industry execs one should expect they would be capable of taking that obligation seriously.

Yes they can talk to their wives, as can industry execs, (close family are usually covered by the same rules) but the wives should be (made) well aware when they recieve insider info.

Too bad for Trippier, but in the grand scheme of things I can’t really feel that sorry for him.

[beninho]

So, players should have to protect the gambling industry? Its a ridiculous suspension, the bookies do not need protecting.

[Soul Requiem]

All industries need protecting regardless of your personal dislike for them, Trippier (a multi millionaire himself) has been banned for breaking the rules.

[beninho]

Its a ridiculous rule and a ridiculous suspension. A player cannot discuss his personal situation with people. What if he contacted a ln estate agent, or told his kids school?

Is the rule that no player in professional football can discuss his situation with anyone?

Its a nonsense rule, unless its for personal gain, and I've not seen anything to indicate it is in this instance.

[Soul Requiem]

Players know the rules and he broke them, not sure what the issue is.

[beninho]

My issue is its a nonsense rule. And obviously selectively used, unless people think that every player is not allowed to talk to family or friends with regards to a change in his personal circumstances. And therefore why are not almost every player suspended under this rule?

[beninho]

Also, if anyone who receives a tip and places a bet, should those bets be refunded if the tip didn't come off?

[McLaren]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading". If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

[I'm never wrong]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading".  If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

[McLaren]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading".  If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

How does it work?

You get cleaned out. It's the nature of the business. Try to pick events that could not be so easily gamed using insider trading.

[I'm never wrong]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading".  If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

How does it work?

You get cleaned out. It's the nature of the business. Try to pick events that could not be so easily gamed using insider trading.

Mac, I said you ran the betting shop. You've just lost all your staff their jobs. How are you going to deal with that? Your way of thinking will result in the betting industry going under. I know you don't like it Mac, but the genie is now out of the bottle and has been for some time.

[Soul Requiem]

So cheating is allowed?

[McLaren]

So cheating is allowed?

It's only cheating if the legislators put rules in place to protect the betting firms. Without those protections the Betting firms are just more exposed to the free market.

[Soul Requiem]

So cheating is allowed?

It's only cheating if the legislators put rules in place to protect the betting firms. Without those protections the Betting firms are just more exposed to the free market.

Nooo it's cheating if people are given information that isn't widely available to the public.

[McLaren]

How is it cheating if the rules don't exist? I don't know about you but I don't think there is an intrinsic moral value that says betting firms should be protected?

[Soul Requiem]

You wouldn't Mac. The rules do exist as set out by the governing bodies of the sports themselves.

[beninho]

Who is cheating?

I still think its a nonsense rule. I dont see the sense in it.

[beninho]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading".  If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

What if soneone has a tip, goes into the bookies and sticks all his money on it. The tip, doesn't cone off, or falls through. Should the bookie return the stake?

[navyblueshorts]

Trippier denied seven alleged breaches of FA Rule E8(1)(b), but four were found proven during a personal hearing.

Rule E8(1)(b) states that a participant must not provide to any person, any information relating to football which the participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time.

Found that in another. It all sounds ridiculous.

Harsh? Maybe. He's paid a fortune, however - least he could do is keep his trap shut about his own transfer etc, especially as that info falls under a rule he might be expected to be aware of perhaps. Then again, it's well known that all footballers are the mental equivalent of Einstein. What's he paying his agent(s), advisors etc for? Maybe he should take this out on them for not better advising him? My heart bleeds for him...

[navyblueshorts]

Its a ridiculous rule and a ridiculous suspension. A player cannot discuss his personal situation with people. What if he contacted a ln estate agent, or told his kids school?

Is the rule that no player in professional football can discuss his situation with anyone?

Its a nonsense rule, unless its for personal gain, and I've not seen anything to indicate it is in this instance.

You disagree ergo it's nonsense? Now that is nonsense.

[McLaren]

Navy

Why should sports governing bodies make rules so that betting firms can offer certain bets? I would agree with Ben that it is nonsense.

[navyblueshorts]

I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading".  If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

How does it work?

You get cleaned out. It's the nature of the business. Try to pick events that could not be so easily gamed using insider trading.

Nope. Knew you wouldn't 'get' this, purely based on your anti-bookie stance. Yet another example of your inability to understand that rules have to apply fairly across the board, and not simply in order to fit your beliefs about what is 'good'.

[beninho]

Its a ridiculous rule and a ridiculous suspension. A player cannot discuss his personal situation with people. What if he contacted a ln estate agent, or told his kids school?

Is the rule that no player in professional football can discuss his situation with anyone?

Its a nonsense rule, unless its for personal gain, and I've not seen anything to indicate it is in this instance.

You disagree ergo it's nonsense? Now that is nonsense.

Obvs. If I agreed I wouldn't think it was nonsense. Sometimes though I can understand a rule, this one i can't get my head round it.

[McLaren]

Navy

Do you support the idea that sports governing bodies should make rules so that bookmakers can offer certain bets?

[beninho]

Also, if the rule is as it is. Why haven't loads of players been found guilty of telling their partners ir friends they are moving. Do we believe that doesn't happen through all 92 teams? Only an issue if someone bets on it?

[beninho]

Trippier denied seven alleged breaches of FA Rule E8(1)(b), but four were found proven during a personal hearing.

Rule E8(1)(b) states that a participant must not provide to any person, any information relating to football which the participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time.

Found that in another. It all sounds ridiculous.

Harsh? Maybe. He's paid a fortune, however - least he could do is keep his trap shut about his own transfer etc, especially as that info falls under a rule he might be expected to be aware of perhaps. Then again, it's well known that all footballers are the mental equivalent of Einstein. What's he paying his agent(s), advisors etc for? Maybe he should take this out on them for not better advising him? My heart bleeds for him...

Not all footballers are paid fortunes though. Though unsure what income has to do with it.

[beninho]

Navy

Do you support the idea that sports governing bodies should make rules so that bookmakers can offer certain bets?

Should bookies offer bets on information that people can and shoukd freely be able to discuss between them.

[McLaren]

Navy

Do you support the idea that sports governing bodies should make rules so that bookmakers can offer certain bets?

Should bookies offer bets on information that people can and shoukd freely be able to discuss between them.

Exactly. A rule exists to create a betting market. Why should Trippier or anyone else have to worry about that?

[beninho]

Though, I will like to read the judgement on the case. As if he was telling his mates to lump on the bet, he deserves it!

[Sponsored content]