[wiffle]

these kinds of threads sort of add credence to my thoughts on math guys. Answer was given within an hour or so of posting the question, and in the first 10 posts. then it was hashed over and debated for another hundred posts and that first answer never changed. Nor did the formula. Just a bunch of assumptions and what ifs and the usual drivel guys who are supposed to be analytical get caught up in. Which is pretty ironic when you think about it.

math is idiotic

[Spektre]

as opposed to TomG who answered it in a few lines

Sorry your posse didn't get in first. Better luck next time.

[widebody2]

Two teams compete. The first team to score 3 times wins.

The odds of the first team winning the match is P. The odds of the second team winning the match is (1-P), which you can also label Q. P and Q are both real numbers between 0 and 1 exclusive (neither number is a 0 or 1).

What are the odds of the first team winning the first point?

Points are only awarded a correct answer. Serious attempts only please; if you post junk it will be moved and ridiculed. If no one wins within 24 hours of this post, no points will be awarded. If more than one answer is correct, the first one gets all the points, and later answers get none.

Since winning the first point and winning the match are completely separate you can not calculate the odds of scoring first based on the odds of winning the match. The first team may be a team that is a slow starter and regularly gets behind in score in the first half of games only to regularly come back and dominate the second halves and win 90% of their games. They may have a 90% chance of winning this game while only having a 5% chance of scoring the first point. Impossible to calculate from the given data.

I could come up with an equation to answer the question, if scoring the first point and actually winning the match had any type of relation but they don't. So the equation would be a waste of time

[donjuan]

I could come up with an equation to answer the question, if scoring the first point and actually winning the match had any type of relation but they don't. So the equation would be a waste of time

How many yachts have you bought with your live betting winnings?

[WendysRox]

so I read through most of 4 pages of this crap only to find out that justin7 didn't even have a solution? Forgive me, but I assumed this was a "trivia" type thing, not just a "hey guys, can anyone help me with this problem?"

Ahh well, maybe subconsciously I learned something.

[widebody2]

How many yachts have you bought with your live betting winnings?

We are talking about a math problem. When solving math problems you can only use given information, or things that you can deduce from the given information. Justin never linked scoring order to odds of winning in any way.

Just because you know in "real life" that the odds of scoring first are in someway linked to the odds of actually winning a match, does not mean that you can use that information when solving a math problem.


Using Justin's given information we only know the odds of which team scores last. We have absolutely zero information on anything besides that. I think I know what he was going for. He wanted odds of the first scored point, in a perfect math world where the odds of scoring each point are all equal. He never stated that, and honestly that is not really how the real world works anyway.

[wantitall4moi]

pretty sure he was looking for a formula to proof out odds on a series or a match.

And then used whatever weighted numbers or formulas he already has to plug in all the advantages he left out here.

In a real world application at least for a best of 5 series type application, you generally have overall odds as well as odds for the first 2 games. You just have to then determine the odds of one team winning in an order that may offer a different value versus the overall odds. So in a 'perfect' unweighted scenario the series would go 5 games and the final game price would be equal to the original series price. Which in the times that does happen isnt always (almost never)the case. So for practical purposes it is generally better to bet a favorite before the series starts and the dog in the final game. If one of them wins in less than 5 games, oh well. for one way action purposes it is always best to have the advantage of seeing two opening lines for the same event.

[RickySteve]

squiggley not wearing clothes

[evo34]

Little smart ass. lol

Question remains open: do you or do you not understand the difference in probability between one trial and a best of x series? If you do not, why do you post on a quantitative forum five times a day?

[Ethan]

My math is always pathetic. and I am cursed to always be losing in betting.

[frankthetank]

the answer is 1