simple April problem #1

[marine]

Look, if I place a $1 bet to pick a spade and WIN, you either A. Take my $1 bet and pay me $4.....OR B. Allow me to take my dollar back or bet again and pay me $3.....its the same thing. 4 for 1 OR 3 to 1.....its the same. If you payout 4 to 1 the house will go broke.....take a deck of cards (minus jokers) deal out the whole deck and keep track of spades (winner for player) versus non-spades (winner for house), 13 player wins at 4 to 1 = 52 units the player would be up, minus the 39 times the player loses and the player would still be up 13 units after dealing out the entire deck.

Here's what has thrown me with your "for" and "to"...
pick a spade:
13 player wins at 4 to 1 (+300 moneyline) = 52 units. 13 of those units are the bettor's original units. so there is a profit of 39 units to the bettor.

Now there are 39 times that the bettor will be wrong. so subtract 39 units from the bettor.

You are left with 0 profit and 0 loss to the bettor.

 

[McVegas]

But that is what Extrapolater wanted...0% house edge.

 

[marine]

Look, if I place a $1 bet to pick a spade and WIN, you either A. Take my $1 bet and pay me $4.....OR B. Allow me to take my dollar back or bet again and pay me $3.....its the same thing. 4 for 1 OR 3 to 1.....its the same. If you payout 4 to 1 the house will go broke.....take a deck of cards (minus jokers) deal out the whole deck and keep track of spades (winner for player) versus non-spades (winner for house), 13 player wins at 4 to 1 = 52 units the player would be up, minus the 39 times the player loses and the player would still be up 13 units after dealing out the entire deck.

I know its confusing, we both are saying the same things here. what confused me, was you putting in that whole 4 for 1 bit.

 

[McVegas]

Did not mean to confuse anybody, just trying to answer the question that Extrapolater asked. For what its worth, I have seen FOR instead of TO used in payouts on craps tables in Vegas (off strip, downtown?? don't remember exactly) Good luck to all.

 

[yak merchant]

Did not mean to confuse anybody, just trying to answer the question that Extrapolater asked. For what its worth, I have seen FOR instead of TO used in payouts on craps tables in Vegas (off strip, downtown?? don't remember exactly) Good luck to all.

Yeah it's used a few places in Vegas to trick drunk people. It's very common in Europe. First time I hammered a 2 for 1 horse in England and got even money I was pissed. But live and learn.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

With marine converting his answer to American odds for me I see he's got the first right answer. Let me know if you're hitting T.O. First week of May is good timing for the festivities.

The controversy actually helped to make things much more interesting. I can see how different people use differing words and explanations trying to get at the same points. In this case, I preferred the moneyline-type response as I'm not always clear (more so than ever) what one means by 4-1 or 4:1. Is the left side total return or is it profit?

Moneyline is a convenient measure but often it needs to be manipulated too, I find.

No house edge on the spade should be +300 as the break-even mark on +300 is 25%.
100(risk) / 400 total return(or pot) = 25%
One in four, obviously, to pick a spade.

No edge on no spade should be -300 as the break-even mark on -300's is 75%.
300/400 = 75%
3 out of 4 to pick no spade.

I appreciate the responses.
Problem #2 will be trickier.
Promise.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

13 spades; 52 cards

looks like it should pay 4:1 to pick a spade

Should pay 1:1.3 to pick a non-spade

Actually, I'm not sure about the second line here.
If "4:1" is +300 (left side is total return, including risk) then how should I read "1:1.3"?
Here, the right side isn't risk and the left return.
And 1.3 units risked won't return 1 unit profit, either.
I get how 4:1 could translate into +300 but not
how 1:1.3 translates into -300.
You're elaboration is what I was looking for but I must to be checking the contest rules.

See if you and McVegas can come down together.

 

[marine]

Actually, I'm not sure about the second line here.
If "4:1" is +300 (left side is total return, including risk) then how should I read "1:1.3"?
Here, the right side isn't risk and the left return.
And 1.3 units risked won't return 1 unit profit, either.
I get how 4:1 could translate into +300 but not
how 1:1.3 translates into -300.
You're elaboration is what I was looking for but I must to be checking the contest rules.

See if you and McVegas can come down together.

-300 converted:

100/300 + 1 = 1.333333333333333333333333333

(I left it at 1.3 for the sake of simplicity)

 

[KotysDad]

Ok, I've read enough lol

4:1 (4 to 1) is not +300.

1:1 is even money +100
2:1 is +200
3:1 is +300

The chances of picking a spade is 3 to 1 +300
You get 3 to 1 on a spade or you lay 3 to 1 (-300) on a non-spade.

You're gonna confuse everyone if you keep going back and forth between American odds and British odds or whatever the hell it is you see on places like SIA where you see 2.00 on an even money bet. But if you want both, here it is.

Pick a spade (American odds +300 British 4.00)
Pick a non-spade (American -300 British 1.33)

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

I will do my best to avoid "British" or "European" or whatever odds in the future. Still, KotysDad has an interesting point: it seems to me that "1:1" should be even-money with "2:1" at 2-to-1 (+200) etc.

I'm just wondering, marine, if there is any chance that you mean 1.3:1 as opposed to 1:1.3. That would make more sense. In the "4:1" you used we have the risk on the right and the total return on the left. In the -300 example you've put the risk on the left with the total return on the right.

I'm certainly not trying to beat a dead horse, and I confess to not doing an online search because I don't like the way these European odds are posted, but I'm trying to make sense of the offered goods in this thread. I've already gotten the correct answer--from a few sources--but the use of the colon is going to bring on a colonoscopy for me.

If marine meant 1.3:1 then it might begin to make some sense to me. Let me know. I'll maybe do that search tomorrow but not sure what to look for--gambling or odds notation of some sort, I guess.

Figured I'd chime in and close this out before (in the next day or two) moving on to problem #2...will be a bit trickier, especially as I've changed it slightly from its original format--might simplify if I'm smart. I'm just trying to get a handle on how people here interpret the numbers. Still got this fantasy about writing a book. I dunno...the odds on that are probably better than the Leafs winning a Cup in my lifetime...i.e. slightly better than 100-to-1 or something.

This problem was too simple but I must disqualify all competitors due to performance-enhancing dru...I mean, due to ambiguity over who was first-in. Considering the simplicity, I wouldn't have thought this would be the case. Maybe my bad for not getting "1:1.3" but, as mentioned, I think those numbers should be reversed.

Will have #2 up shortly.

Also, not trying to get out of the bargain. Any madjacker who gets to (or is in) Toronto can score a free disc of killler tunes if arrangements can be made to hook up for a brew or some java.

Funk--I can go on about absolutely nothing.
Thanks for the words.

 

[marine]

Last edited by marine : 04-10-2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason: change 1.3:1 to 1:1.3


i had it the other way originally. for some reason it just didn't look quite right that way. I was thinking because it was a 'favorite' the 1 had to go first.

 

[yyz]

Jesus Christ! No wonder the bookies drive a Lexus!