United States Member #45802 August 28, 2006 335 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 12:27 pm - IP Logged

If you really knew for sure that you had less than a 20% chance of winning ever, would you still play? I did not say win 20% of the time, I said less than a 20% chance of winning anything.

This is a Lotto question and a political question. Because the 20% number is how the American people for the last 7 or 8 plus years have rated the United States Congress as a meaningful body of government that acts in their best interest.

If your answer is yes to my question you are going to love the new congress. If you say no you are awake and could win millions in the Lottery and reshape America.

Its looks to me like we still have another choice. Lets use it.

United States Member #41383 June 16, 2006 1969 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 1:02 pm - IP Logged

Do you think if we dumped everyone out of Congress that this percentage would change much ?

By what, 10% maybe ? To 30% ?

I am apathetic in that I feel no matter who gets elected they will only serve in their own best interests, because that is how the political system is now, and has been for 26 years (or longer). Once you get into a position where folks just shovel money your way - in politics OR business - it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn it down. And if you think otherwise, you are dreaming - and you've never been involved in a business.

New Jersey United States Member #17843 June 28, 2005 49618 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 1:22 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by floridian on November 9, 2006

If you really knew for sure that you had less than a 20% chance of winning ever, would you still play? I did not say win 20% of the time, I said less than a 20% chance of winning anything.

This is a Lotto question and a political question. Because the 20% number is how the American people for the last 7 or 8 plus years have rated the United States Congress as a meaningful body of government that acts in their best interest.

If your answer is yes to my question you are going to love the new congress. If you say no you are awake and could win millions in the Lottery and reshape America.

Its looks to me like we still have another choice. Lets use it.

Floridian

Using these guidelines would you play Russian Roulette where the odds are 1 in 6 (16.6%)?

United States Member #45802 August 28, 2006 335 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 2:16 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by guesser on November 9, 2006

Do you think if we dumped everyone out of Congress that this percentage would change much ?

By what, 10% maybe ? To 30% ?

I am apathetic in that I feel no matter who gets elected they will only serve in their own best interests, because that is how the political system is now, and has been for 26 years (or longer). Once you get into a position where folks just shovel money your way - in politics OR business - it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn it down. And if you think otherwise, you are dreaming - and you've never been involved in a business.

When was the last time we tried it?

Remember the meaning of total insanity, you do the same thing over and over and over again and expect different results.

Their are few successful lottery players who beat a dead horse.

By the way guy apathy is old hat. It doesn't work anymore either. The apathy bit has been done to death for at least 60 years that I am aware of.

New Jersey United States Member #17843 June 28, 2005 49618 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 3:47 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by floridian on November 9, 2006

Depends how many bullets are in the chamber to get the real odds and it could be an automatic so the odds work to your advantage.

I guess Raven62 is an optimist he believes the chamber is 5/6 full of good luck or 8/9 good luck depending on what gun we are talking about.

But one thing for sure I would not play Russian roulette with a Russian.

Floridian

Russian Roulette: is the practice of placing a single round in a revolver, spinning the cylinder and closing it into the firearm without looking, aiming the revolver at one's own head in a suicidal fashion, and pulling the trigger.

Once the cylinder is spun, the weight of the bullet tends to make the cylinder rest with the bullet toward the bottom, thus increasing the odds that the shot taken will be a blank. Therefore, the argument that each hole is equally likely to be under the hammer is contestable. One way that this 'bullet bias' could be eliminated is to spin the cylinder with the barrel pointed down, so the cylinder spins on a vertical axis instead of a horizontal one.

For the purpose of this section, the effect bullet bias would have on the odds is ignored for simplicity reasons.

The terminology for this section:

Player: One participant in the game

P1, P2 ... Pn: Player 1 to Player n respectively

T: The total number of players in the game.

B: The number of bullets in the gun

C: The number of chambers in the gun

Round: A round occurs when a player takes one shot at his head with the gun. For example, the normal game with B = 1 and C = 6 and the cylinder isn't being spun would have a maximum of 6 rounds. It is assumed that P1 goes first, then P2 and so on.

R1, R2 ... Rn: Rounds 1 to n respectively

Losing a round: the gun gets fired.

Winning a round: the gun wasn't fired.

The game stops on the first losing round.

A player Pn dies if Rx results in a death and {(x - n)} \mod {T}. For example, if there are 2 players (T = 2) then player 1 dies if round 13 is a death : {(13 - 1)} \mod {2}. Put another way, Pn loses if any of the rounds n, n + T, n + 2T... results in a loss (these can be represented by the formula n + xT where x is a positive integer or 0).

The most common russian roulette game has T = 2; B = 1; C = 6; P1 loses on rounds 1, 3, 5 and P2 loses on rounds 2, 4, 6.

If the cylinder is spun after every shot, the odds of losing a round is BC. Alternatively, the odds of winning a round is 1 - \frac{B}{C}. However, the odds of making it to round n drop as n gets larger. This is because to make it to round n, rounds n-1, n-2... must have been won. So the odds for the game to stop on round n is (1 - \frac{B}{C})^{(n-1)} * \frac{B}{C}. Then, the odds of Px to lose is \sum_{k=0}^n (1 - \frac{B}{C}) ^{(x + kT - 1)} * \frac{B}{C} as n approaches infinity. This can be simplified to A^{x-1} . \frac{B}{C} . \frac{1}{(1-A^T)} where A = 1 - \frac{B}{C}.

For a standard game, P1 has a 6/11 chance of losing, while P2 has a 5/11 chance. Hence it is better to go last. Also, note the Ax - 1 part of the equation. A is always less than 1, so as (x-1) increases, the chance to lose decreases. Hence it is always better to go last independent of number of players, and other parameters.

If the cylinder is not spun after each shot, the probability of losing a game can be determined by looking at each possibility of the bullet configuration in the gun. For example, in a standard game, if the bullet was in position 3, player 1 would lose. There are six possible positions for the bullet to be in a standard game: 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. Player 1 would lose if it is in position 1,3,5 (a 3/6 chance) and player 2 would lose if it is in position 2,4 or 6 (a 3/6 chance). Therefore both have an equal probability of losing (1/2).

Another example is with 6 players and 9 chambers with 1 bullet. There are seven possible positions for this game: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. Player 1 would lose if it is in position 1,4,9 (a 3/9 chance), player 2: 2,5 (2/9), player 3: 3,6 (2/9), player 4: 4,7 (2/9), player 5: 5,8 (2/9), player 6: 6,9 (2/9) and player 7: 7 (1/9). In this case, it is much better to go last as compared to going first.

United States Member #45802 August 28, 2006 335 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 4:02 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Raven62 on November 9, 2006

Russian Roulette: is the practice of placing a single round in a revolver, spinning the cylinder and closing it into the firearm without looking, aiming the revolver at one's own head in a suicidal fashion, and pulling the trigger.

Once the cylinder is spun, the weight of the bullet tends to make the cylinder rest with the bullet toward the bottom, thus increasing the odds that the shot taken will be a blank. Therefore, the argument that each hole is equally likely to be under the hammer is contestable. One way that this 'bullet bias' could be eliminated is to spin the cylinder with the barrel pointed down, so the cylinder spins on a vertical axis instead of a horizontal one.

For the purpose of this section, the effect bullet bias would have on the odds is ignored for simplicity reasons.

The terminology for this section:

Player: One participant in the game

P1, P2 ... Pn: Player 1 to Player n respectively

T: The total number of players in the game.

B: The number of bullets in the gun

C: The number of chambers in the gun

Round: A round occurs when a player takes one shot at his head with the gun. For example, the normal game with B = 1 and C = 6 and the cylinder isn't being spun would have a maximum of 6 rounds. It is assumed that P1 goes first, then P2 and so on.

R1, R2 ... Rn: Rounds 1 to n respectively

Losing a round: the gun gets fired.

Winning a round: the gun wasn't fired.

The game stops on the first losing round.

A player Pn dies if Rx results in a death and {(x - n)} \mod {T}. For example, if there are 2 players (T = 2) then player 1 dies if round 13 is a death : {(13 - 1)} \mod {2}. Put another way, Pn loses if any of the rounds n, n + T, n + 2T... results in a loss (these can be represented by the formula n + xT where x is a positive integer or 0).

The most common russian roulette game has T = 2; B = 1; C = 6; P1 loses on rounds 1, 3, 5 and P2 loses on rounds 2, 4, 6.

If the cylinder is spun after every shot, the odds of losing a round is BC. Alternatively, the odds of winning a round is 1 - \frac{B}{C}. However, the odds of making it to round n drop as n gets larger. This is because to make it to round n, rounds n-1, n-2... must have been won. So the odds for the game to stop on round n is (1 - \frac{B}{C})^{(n-1)} * \frac{B}{C}. Then, the odds of Px to lose is \sum_{k=0}^n (1 - \frac{B}{C}) ^{(x + kT - 1)} * \frac{B}{C} as n approaches infinity. This can be simplified to A^{x-1} . \frac{B}{C} . \frac{1}{(1-A^T)} where A = 1 - \frac{B}{C}.

For a standard game, P1 has a 6/11 chance of losing, while P2 has a 5/11 chance. Hence it is better to go last. Also, note the Ax - 1 part of the equation. A is always less than 1, so as (x-1) increases, the chance to lose decreases. Hence it is always better to go last independent of number of players, and other parameters.

If the cylinder is not spun after each shot, the probability of losing a game can be determined by looking at each possibility of the bullet configuration in the gun. For example, in a standard game, if the bullet was in position 3, player 1 would lose. There are six possible positions for the bullet to be in a standard game: 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. Player 1 would lose if it is in position 1,3,5 (a 3/6 chance) and player 2 would lose if it is in position 2,4 or 6 (a 3/6 chance). Therefore both have an equal probability of losing (1/2).

Another example is with 6 players and 9 chambers with 1 bullet. There are seven possible positions for this game: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. Player 1 would lose if it is in position 1,4,9 (a 3/9 chance), player 2: 2,5 (2/9), player 3: 3,6 (2/9), player 4: 4,7 (2/9), player 5: 5,8 (2/9), player 6: 6,9 (2/9) and player 7: 7 (1/9). In this case, it is much better to go last as compared to going first.

Raven62

Nada to all of that If the cylinder has the bullet pointed at your head after you spin it you are s#$t out of luck. Then your odds are zero. For that matter who said anything about playing with one bullet.

United States Member #41383 June 16, 2006 1969 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 4:12 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by floridian on November 9, 2006

When was the last time we tried it?

Remember the meaning of total insanity, you do the same thing over and over and over again and expect different results.

Their are few successful lottery players who beat a dead horse.

By the way guy apathy is old hat. It doesn't work anymore either. The apathy bit has been done to death for at least 60 years that I am aware of.

Floridian

1) We haven't - the dynamics have changed too much.

2) It depends on what the 'same thing' is.

3) There are few successful lottery players, period. What is your definition of 'successful' ? To some, it's making $3 back on a one dollar ticket, to others, it's winning 5 numbers, to others it's hitting the jackpot. I don't know anyone that is playing the lottery SPECIFICALLY to

win $3.

4) Your opinion, you are entitled to it, I have no problem disagreeing with you, apparently you don't feel the same way. That's fine.

To further explain what I mean: in Washington, the people may change, the causes may change, the end result and how it is achieved will never change.

To compare the 20% with russian roulette is an extreme, don't you think ? Yes, I know it exists, but there is a difference in pointing a gun at your head vs. picking numbers in a game, and to that end, you asked if a person would play if they knowingly had a 20% chance of 'winning'.

SO we need to define what 'winning' is ? Let's assume it's a worthwhile sum of money - say $100. Would I play knowing I had a 20% chance of winning ? Sure. Why ? Because I'd spend $1 over 4 drawings, and by your odds, I'd win $100 on my 5th try, according to your criteria.

I also need to specify this is a GAME, we know the odds, I don't think anyone EXPECTS to win, but we enjoy playing it, just as one enjoys needlepoint, softball, camping or golfing.

New Jersey United States Member #17843 June 28, 2005 49618 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by floridian on November 9, 2006

Raven62

Nada to all of that If the cylinder has the bullet pointed at your head after you spin it you are s#$t out of luck. Then your odds are zero. For that matter who said anything about playing with one bullet.

Floridian

Russian roulette is typically the practice of placing a single round in a revolver, spinning the cylinder and closing it into the firearm without looking, aiming the revolver at one's own head in a suicidal fashion, and pulling the trigger.

New Jersey United States Member #17843 June 28, 2005 49618 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 4:51 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by guesser on November 9, 2006

Raven, he's playing a different version than we are...

It seems so! LOL! The question was: if you knew you only had a 20% chance of Winning would you still play; if I said: if you knew you had a 80% chance of Winning would you still play, everyone would say yes. Raising the Stakes by playing a game (Russian Roulette) with the same chance of Winning, it would seem no one wanted to play.

United States Member #5344 June 30, 2004 23641 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 6:04 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by floridian on November 9, 2006

If you really knew for sure that you had less than a 20% chance of winning ever, would you still play? I did not say win 20% of the time, I said less than a 20% chance of winning anything.

This is a Lotto question and a political question. Because the 20% number is how the American people for the last 7 or 8 plus years have rated the United States Congress as a meaningful body of government that acts in their best interest.

If your answer is yes to my question you are going to love the new congress. If you say no you are awake and could win millions in the Lottery and reshape America.

Its looks to me like we still have another choice. Lets use it.

Floridian

Are you saying the new congress will produce less than 20%...? Now that it has made an improvement?

It is way over due for a change in our government. Will be an interesting next two years..

I am only surprised it took the last two years for the people to see something needed to be done..

I knew we as a "whole" couldn't continue to be ignorant.

United States Member #41383 June 16, 2006 1969 Posts Offline

Posted: November 9, 2006, 9:09 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by tntea on November 9, 2006

Are you saying the new congress will produce less than 20%...? Now that it has made an improvement?

It is way over due for a change in our government. Will be an interesting next two years..

I am only surprised it took the last two years for the people to see something needed to be done..

I knew we as a "whole" couldn't continue to be ignorant.

No, we knew something needed to be done 1-2 years ago, but we couldn't DO anything about it until this election.

I'll go out on a limb and say most americans stood behind bush because we thought he had a plan, little did we know he has no real plan at all (in Iraq), does anyone know what our goal is in Iraq ?

I mean beyond 'root out terrorism', how do we do that ? What's the plan ??