|Posted: February 25, 2006, 1:02 am - IP Logged|
Of course the whole debate could possibly be just a matter of the way in which people choose to define what odds are.
"If you want to define your odds as the favorable outcomes within the total amount of outcomes possible, then two different 6 of 49 combinations would indeed give you the odds of 2:13,983,816 - That should be observed as 2 in 13,983,816 and could easily be written as the fraction 2/13,983,816 or 1/6,991,908 when reduced.
If you want to define odds as a RATIO of favorable outcomes to the total amount of unfavorable outcomes possible or vice-versa, then two different 6 of 49 combinations would list your odds as 2:13,983,814. That would be viewed as 2 favorable outcomes to 13,983,814 unfavorable outcomes. Notice that 2 combinations were subtracted from the total amount of 13,983,816 because they are favorable outcomes..."
I think that Thot indeed touches the essence of all these discussions. It seems clear that failure to agree on, or any lack of understanding of, the meaning of the term, "ODDs" caused the apparent discrepancy between two parties on a very simple issue. For example, someone(s) seemingly identifies the odds as 'the number of all possible outcomes that were not covered', which, according to the books and articles I read, is NOT valid. Therefore, I believe, without agreeing on that, any further debate is almost futile.