I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.
I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.
But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player’s winnings.
You’re right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That’s a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.
Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.
I don’t know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren’t, but I don’t see how that works in their favor.
You’re saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to “double-or-nothing”? I was thinking they’d only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.
That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house’s favor.
Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.
If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning… but they’ll get 8 times their initial bet. So it’s technically a fair game, right?
I feel like he was working up to a punchline about haven mistaken a toy for an electric school bus, but for some reason failed to get there.
Yeah, I can’t speak to the behind-the-scenes drama, but I agree that Pierce was at his best in Season One, where he was a little bit grandiose and a little bit of a jerk but still had moments of wisdom and humanity. I always liked the talk he gave Jeff in the boating episode.
Turning him into a total buffoon villain from season 2 onwards was a change for the worse.
Like the Klingon dish gagh?
Taiwan had the same concern. What they did is make it so that receipts also work as lottery tickets, to encourage people to ask for them and hold on to them.
Forget Sandy Loam. I want to know more about this “silly clay.”
That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.
Sure, both sides are not the same. But the “good” side is still part of the system that allows the “bad” side to exist.
So by all means, vote for the party that will do less damage in the short term. But oppose FPTP voting at the same time.
I would argue that the doctrine of Hell introduced in the New Testament is crazier than anything in the Old Testament.
deleted by creator
What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.
The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?
In Iran, gender reassignment is legal, and they’ll even change the birth certificate to match, from what I learned a decade ago.
Homosexuality, however, is a capital offense, so many gay people are pressured to transition.
Some conservative societies seem to have the attitude that it’s better to go from one role with rigid expectations to another than it is to fail to meet the expectations of your original role.
I’m going to say outdoor.
The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.
I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.
Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.