SCEPCOP Forum

the professor hasnt come here in a while
the beauty of TiVo is that he gets to see Barney 24/7
which keeps him busy

Over at Magic Talk forum (only place he gets to post stuff unchallenged generally as its made up of all his buddies)Dave is crowing about Mysteries magazine apaprently running an article about the Thoght dial test. They seem to have overlooked th eobvious,and the fact hundreds predict lottery numbers(a much harder task) every week! But then I guess rational thinking isn't high on their agenda.

I notice that in Glickman's statement that the odds computed are for independent probabilities. I though that the test involved everyone openly announcing their decisions over a period of time. That's not independent. The multiplication formula only applies if one probability does not affect another probability. That's what independent means.

A good example of how the odds change is shown by the old tv show Let's Make a Deal. In that show there were 3 doors. You got to pick one of the doors. Then the host would try to trick you by showing you a miss. After showing a miss you'd be asked if you wanted to switch doors or stay with what you have.

When you first picked a door the chances were 1 in 3. There was 1 winner door and 2 loser doors. That's pretty easy to understand. But after you made a choice the host shows you a loser. Now the odds have changed because you learned something.

Let's split out the outcomes in two 2 cases:
a) There is 1 chance in 3 of picking the winner
b) There is 2 chances in 3 of picking a loser

If you don't switch doors you have 1 chance in 3 of picking the winner. But what if you switched doors.
a) If you had picked the winner then you definitely switch to a loser. So 1 chance in 3 you pick a loser
b) Case b is the 2 chances in 3 that you picked a loser. The host shows you the other loser. So if you switch doors you have to pick the winner. So 2 chances in 3 that you pick the winner.

The best strategy is to always switch doors. You double your chance of a win. You benefit by the host showing you a loser. Notice that your odds don't change to 1/2 but rather to 2/3.

The problem here is there is an assumption that people will bet based on the odds. Do you know anyone that follows the odds when betting? It's an emotional trip. Being a machine is not what counts in gambling. It's the emotional thrill. So I doubt that the probability of someone picking one team over the other is based on rational odds.

But the second person knows what the first person chose. The third knows what the first 2 chose. The statement is that everything was done in the open. When a group gets together they become a group by agreeing with each other. So the probability of choosing one team over the other changes as new members are added to the team.

The way to prevent this is to have everyone make a decision and send in that decision. No one including the person receiving the decisions should look at the decisions until everyone has made a decision. There should be no open discussions about the decisions until the decisions are handed in. Then each of the decision is made independently.

Another example of actions affecting later actions is to guess card suits. If the cards are shown after the guess is made, the person guessing could begin to count and figure out by the end of the deck which suits are likely to show up. The might known that all of the clubs are gone, and only a few heart are left so the deck is rich in spades and diamonds. But if they are not shown the deck they can't take advantage of this extra information.

Several Math Instructors have all agreed that the odds and probability in this experiment are 100% correct!
The article will be out soon. Too bad the Pseudo-Skeptics can't dispute the real facts.

Funny little man ... First you said there was no Professor and I've proven you wrong. Now you want more mud on your face? HA Ha Ha !!!!

Anyone with any math background will agree it's 1/3 to the 7th power.

Sorry you didn't learn that in Jr, High.

Ask Martin Gardner.

dave
you came here AFTER the superbowl
like all your predictions
you always talk loud AFTER the fact never before

busted again, drunk

Please say that this wasn't published before the Super Bowl ... If that's what you are saying then again you've proven to be a big LIAR!

Please say it was stooged and you'll have to prove THEY are all lying (Which you can't), but we really know YOU are the one lying.

It was all published before the game and everyone knows that. To say it isn't proves you are THE LIAR

Even Martin Gardner knows that !!!!!

You lied about the odds professor. End of story.