wow, ....

Don't you see that if you roll them both at the same time, dice 2, the less polished cheaper dice is more likely to stop rolling around first, and since I have a bigger chance of winning with dice 1 I'd rather have it stop rolling first, since its more likely to make me the ROUND TWO VICTOR, then after I have that awesomely cool yet completely irrelevant title claimed we can let dice 2 rip as a "tiebreaker", which makes it sound like I was way closer to a win since its like a basketball overtime, 1-2 is way more "bawss" than 0-2

lol

most people in this situation would take a second to realize that literally everyone in the thread thinks they're wrong (and wants to bet them a lot of money on it)

but nope, keep on chugging kid!

That would be so cool, I can only compare your explanation to Soccer, because I don't know anything about basketball.

Imagine if you played extra time before the 90minute main game. That would be awesome. Imagine the meta game, you could totally relax and lose extra time 20-0. Or you could go for draw in the main game after winning the beforehand extra time. Sick idea imo.

What happens when you run them both at the same time though.

yeah, like explanations of martingale seem so fullproof because english just doesn't seem to do justice do a lot of finer points in math, especially probability. Like the word "always" which people use in explanations of martingale are often used in sentences like "we'll always seem to win 1 trial" or the word "unlikely" in a sentence like "its very unlikely we'll lose x amount of times in a row" not only lead the reader astray, but they are not even pertinent to the main point at hand.

The universe collapses or some other failed attempt at a witty joke.

As I'm in my serious mood though, I think giving and receiving so much random crap is not helpful for either side of the argument and obviously makes for a much tougher environment for admitting mistakes (and moving on and locking this thread).

ImNotSoGood made a fair point about Zugwat being semi-douchey, we shouldn't judge him as being "OUTRAGEOUS". I definately feel his "explanations" and responses of the fallacy have also been semi-douchey. I think poking a little fun at the situation is more than ok because of it, but I also understand where you are coming from. If he had been trying his best to convey his thoughts, rather than talking total bajunky, then I'd be sorry. Most likely he has realised his mistake, and won't post again in this thread. Either that or he's super stubborn and illogical.

EDIT: I can see the possiblity ImNotSoGood misunderstood the problem, whereby he wants to play a single tie-breaker match, rather than multitabling, requiring a 2-0 win.

Look, lets say you win the first match A% of the time and the second match B% of the time.

Are you arguing that A and B will change depending on whether the matches are played at the same time or not? If so, why do you believe this?

but guys that last match is a TIE BREAKER

TIE

FRIGGIN

BREAKER

omg TIE BREAKERRRRR

I'm not really following whats being said about the multi tabling issue but, were in the rules does it say that he has to play 2-3 tables at a time?

was it not just encouraged to play 2-3 at a time? if he feels his edge is better playing 1 at a time then that should be fine? but zugwat was obviously in the wrong here constantly holding the match off, he shouldn't have entered the tourny if he wasn't too bothered about getting the games done asap, doing things like 4 tabling ike hu rather than playing imnotsogood was obviously wrong.

EDIT: correct me if i'm wrong about if the rules state he has to multi table, bc i've not checked the rules that were set.

Zugwat is very sleepy imo.

This

Mark

lol yuh

<3 reef

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJf7G08kMfA

anonymouse.org imo Warbucks.

Mark

Wow this one of the funniest threads I have read on 2+2.

Usually when a lot of very smart people tell you that you are wrong, you may want to reconsider your stance.

that always sucks in school when you raise your hands for multiple choice answers and 90% of the class raises their hand for the answer you didn't pick

anyway i can see wanting to get the 3k-1k match out of the way for greater focus and morale in the final match

So, assuming I understand this correctly, this part of your calculation

{(.75).50+(.25).75}

is supposed to be the "speed of win"?

Assuming that this is correct (and frankly, I don't understand what you're trying to do here):

How is the speed related to the EV? Why would you multiply your "stack" (.625 = 5000/8000) by the speed?

What, exactly, is 0.3516 supposed to represent?

Lastly, if we take your argument about adding another table effectively making it one big table literally, then why isn't your chance to win 0.625?

epic

lollllllllllllllllls great thread, so many plots

I seriously wanna prop bet any amount you want, as long as it is escrowed by someone of trust who haven't read this thread yet.

PLEASE ANSWER I want to do it.