LG John

Leading on from this thread let us approach our poll in a different way

In this bet god/your mommy/whoever is laying you odds of 2-1 on a 10% risk for the value of everything you own. This time if you take the bet then 90% of the time you are going to double through but 10% of the time you are cold, hungry and sleeping on the streets.

You'll notice this bet is effectively EXACTLY the same as the last one just that the risk vs reward loading is slightly different

farmer1

Considering the amount of mileage I have left on my life and the lack of belongings I have in comparison to how i see myself in a number of years, I would gamble everything for a bet of such high odds.

mj

bet 1 ( other thread ) - 50/50 risk, x 10 gains.

this bet - 1/10 risk, double gains.

different bet altogether.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hey, that was my idea!

mj: You're right that it's a very different bet, but the average payout is actually massively reduced. Over 10 bets, with the original odds the casino pays out 50 units and takes in 5, net payout 45. This bet pays out 9 and takes in 1, net payout just 8.

Yet despite that, I find this bet curiously more compelling - though the answer is still 'no'.

LG John

Yes, I can confirm that credit for this bet is due to Andy

Whilst the bet is financially different the 'human' application of it makes it a viable ying to the 50:50x10 yang.

We are basically switching the rewards - risk around but applying the same loading. I expect a LOT more people would take this bet on because they can live with the 10% risk but would still appreciate the 100% reward. In the other bet I expect the big problem is the 50% risk where the 10 fold return just isn't an incentive! For most that have voted no in the other thread I expect that even a 100 fold return still wouldn't be an incentive as the buck stops at the risk

mj

bet 1 is bad news unless you have some backing....


bet 2, 10% of my 56K, most of which is bricks & mortar, count me in

milo

i wouldnt take this one either. losing everything material that ive worked for so far in life would frickin' suck. i hated being poor as hell for years, and now that im far from it, i dont want to go back.

if i was forced to choose between one of the bets tho, it would be this one over the 50:50x10 one.

LG John

Lol, so far the poll is blowing my theory right out the water. Perhaps now the problem is that a double up is a rather meanless reward to most such that they just wouldn't take that small chance.

That said whilst I say 'small', 10% risk is bloody massive! I have had on the trot beats in poker that I've cumulatively calculated to have 0.1% probability, etc

milo

no unless im reading saxo's bet wrong, it's NOT 10% of your 56k. it would still be 100% of your 56k like the last bet, but in this one there's "only" a 10% chance that you'd lose.

LG John

Don't suppose I can just force you to hand over all your cash to me anyway

LG John

Milo is correct:

BET 1 = 50% risk for a 10 fold return on investment

BET 2 = 10% risk for a 2 fold return on investment

mj

err..
saxo said:

Milo is correct:

BET 1 = 50% risk for a 10 fold return on investment

BET 2 = 10% risk for a 2 fold return on investment


mj said:
bet 1 ( other thread ) - 50/50 risk, x 10 gains.

this bet - 1/10 risk, double gains.

mj

x 2

Tiggs

SB,
just going right the way back, pocket A's are not 90% on!

LG John

Mj you've lost me but then my brain is a little burned out tonight so educate me on your point or the failing in my/milos maths (I'm gussing it won't be milo's!)

Tiggs, I don't recall saying AA were 90% on but they are 85% against ANY random hand (check with a great little program called pokerstove (do google search)). If you consider that the hands likely to call your allin are realistically restricted to KK, QQ, maybe JJ and AK then its 81% (all different suits), 80%, 80% for JJ and 92% v AK. All very favourable odds. Even assuming the hand most likely to crack AA calls (67s from memory) calls then the WORST possible shape you can be is 77%. Given that realistically you are looking at only 20% risk for a double up then I can't see any reason to ever fold AA heads up in a cash game. It just mathematical suicide.

mj

Saxo, what is difficult to understand?

err..
saxo said:

Milo is correct:

BET 1 = 50% risk for a 10 fold return on investment

BET 2 = 10% risk for a 2 fold return on investment


mj said:
bet 1 ( other thread ) - 50/50 risk, x 10 gains.

this bet - 1/10 risk, double gains.

?

LG John

BET 1 = 50% risk for a 10 fold return on investment

BET 2 = 10% risk for a 2 fold return on investment


mj said:
bet 1 ( other thread ) - 50/50 risk, x 10 gains.

this bet - 1/10 risk, double gains.

Do these not say the exact same thing? What is your point?

Regacy

That's missing the point...
If you don't have it in the first place, at best you'll end up with double 'not much' and at worst nothing, neither of which is a particularly compelling result.
R

mj

maybe wer'e talking about different points my point was teh 2nd bet was different ti the first. <i think >

LG John

Well that was never in debate! Of course its different. The risk is far less but so is the reward but the weighting is in real world terms the same just reversed