I asked a probability question in the probability forum which the guys and thanks for their efforts closed the thread because they said i was repeating the same question in which they have already answered, i admit the post i made when they closed thread was my bad, but they keep telling me i have no understanding of betting markets in which i totally do. What they keep answering has nothing to do with the question i asked in the thread.

If i ask the same question in 100 horse racing forums all 100 would understand the question this i would bet any money on but they would answer its a question for a maths forum hence why i asked in the probability forum.



See thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...stion-1648268/

Confucius say go **** yourself already

They answered the question there. You were confusing payout schedule and probability of each outcome. The percentage odds of all possible outcomes always adds up to 100% no matter what. This is true even if you don't like it.

If, in a coin-flip, you have a real probability of heads 45% and tails 45% of the time then you have a 10% probability that the coin lands on its end.* In a horse race, the sum of the individual percentages of each horse winning* = 100%. This is true even if you don't like it.

If you cut an apple into two pieces, the two pieces will add up to 100% of an apple. The two pieces will never add up to 90% of an apple. This is known as the conservation of apple law.

No one seemed confused about the difference between a payout schedule and actual probability of each outcome. I imagine this would be true if instead of posting it in a probability forum, you had posted it in a betting forum or a German language tutoring forum or a forum devoted to the scrambling of eggs.

*or possibly that it falls through a wormhole or some other bull****.

**neglecting dead heats.

in horse racing many professional horse bettors use the 90% not 100% and when i said to them isn't 100% correct instead of 90% they would say it doesn't make any difference hence why i asked the question.


To use the apple theory but use water instead this is a argument to suit the 90% horse bettors.

100 liters of water divided, so allocate 50 liters to heads and 50 liters to tails.

does heads in anyway have a advantage over tails or the other way around obviously not.

ok what if we use 90 liters of water instead and divide between both, so we allocate 45 liters to heads and 45 liters to tails.

does heads in anyway have a advantage over tails or the other way around obviously not.


All that is done is the 100% is being divided between two in a coin flip and in a horse race between more runners which again equals 100%. But why is 100% more accurate then using 90% because with the 90% all you're are doing is exactly the same as you are with the 100% where you're dividing each horses probability, but instead of using 100% as the total you're using 90%.

Whichever dickhead deleted my post, please undelete it now that you see I was responding appropriately kthx.

Because, as has been repeatedly explained to you, 45/90 is 50%. It is that simple. There is nothing more to it than that.

No. 45 liters out of 90 liters is 45/90 = 0.5 = 50%.

Again, it is that simple. Nothing more to it than that.

You said it always adds to 100% and that 100% is correct not 90%. But i posted the water example which shows that using 90% instead is as accurate as using 100%. And I'm not confusing payout schedule especially since it has nothing to do with probability, you guys think i am confusing payout schedule, that's the whole confusion of the thread.

When you use 90% there is no 10% where the coin lands on neither heads or tails but on the edge instead, just 90% in total, it can either land on heads or tails in using 90% not on the edge.

I was that dickhead. Your post was restored.

You realize that you make my moderation tasks that much more difficult. But I sense that is not a concern that registers much with you. By the way, Mr. Tom, if you would also start threads instead of just responding to them your positive contribution to the forum would increase. But again, that may not be a high priority on your personal agenda.

There may be a 100% chance that I will have to close this thread. But I'll wait and see.

No. 45 liters out of 90 liters is 45/90 = 0.5 = 50%.

Again, it is that simple. Nothing more to it than that.

Confucius say everything in moderation, including moderation.

OP, the term 'percent', or the symbol '%' literally mean 'parts per hundred'. Using the term or the symbol implies that the whole is 100%, that is '100 parts per hundred'. In your water example, you are suggesting that the whole of the water is defined as 90%, literally 90 parts per hundred of the water. Having 90% of something by the definition of the percentage function means there is another 10% missing. Your confusion seems to be stemming from simply not knowing what 'percentage' actually means.

Well if there is a 10% chance of the coin landing on its edge then your fine.

I assume that is not what you mean, so ignoring side landing.

Yes, your fine but you have to realise that you have changed the definition of percentage probability so it is different to what anyone else means when they use the term. So you will have to be careful to education anyone using your model to the altered definitions. Confusion is likely guaranteed if anyone else uses your model.

Are you sure that what you really want to talk about is conditional probability?

You think you can change the definition of 0.9 to 1.0?

No, more like multiply everything by a constant factor e.g. 0.9.

So what is usually displayed as 1.0 is now displayed as 0.9*1.0 =0.9 etc...

If you are mainly concerned in ratios then the difference could end up being entirely cosmetic. Just adding an extra layer of confusion.

Although why you would ever bother is unclear.

As I suggested I think he really wants to talk about conditional probability.

Ok. I believe everything has been covered. Including the icing on the cake. In two forums; and all for the sole benefit of the OP. Including all relevant math/probability concepts in reference to the question with the proper explanations and illustrations and examples for clarity - and even an outlier of anatomical methodology usually not employed in basic probability theory. I want to thank everyone for their effort and patience. The thread is now closed.

SMP can now get back to the more worthwhile and efficient task of insulting larger groups of people, instead of doing it individually.

QED