[davidsiegel]

Thanks to those who played my first question. The second is a follow-up ...

I have an opaque bag containing 100 balls identical except for color. 99 of the balls are white and 1 is black. I put $14,900 on the table. If you put $100 of your money on the table, you can draw a single ball out of the bag one time. If you draw a white ball, you lose your $100. If you draw the black ball, you take the entire $15,000. You only get to do this one time, and there are no tricks - I have the cash on the table already. Assume this is a real proposition and that you have as much money as you currently have. I'm not going to tell you how big your bankroll is - look at your own balance sheet and make your own decision.

NOW do you take the bet?

[oiler]

nope

[Blax0r]

Thanks to those who played my first question. The second is a follow-up ...

I have an opaque bag containing 100 balls identical except for color. 99 of the balls are white and 1 is black. I put $14,900 on the table. If you put $100 of your money on the table, you can draw a single ball out of the bag one time. If you draw a white ball, you lose your $100. If you draw the black ball, you take the entire $15,000. You only get to do this one time, and there are no tricks - I have the cash on the table already. Assume this is a real proposition and that you have as much money as you currently have. I'm not going to tell you how big your bankroll is - look at your own balance sheet and make your own decision.

NOW do you take the bet?

Not sure if this is obvious, but the answer will be different for each person. You even highlighted this fact in your question.

[Carl-Haakon]

Not sure if this is obvious, but the answer will be different for each person. You even highlighted this fact in your question.

Timeshares not working out for him so he's in research now

[Miz]

I have an opaque bag

Yes I accept the challenge but not based on any +EV calculation or bankroll kelly nonsense.

I will likely be able to fiddle around and see the black ball making this a very low risk for me. High probability of success.

[EXhoosier10]

no thanks.

[snapperman2]

Yes

[James D]

yes

[TMoney33]

Hell yeah

[Kaabee]

I have an opaque bag

Yes I accept the challenge but not based on any +EV calculation or bankroll kelly nonsense.

I will likely be able to fiddle around and see the black ball making this a very low risk for me. High probability of success.

opaque means impenetrable to light

[mebaran]

So, if your bankroll is >$29,411.77, then the $100 bet should be made?

[Optional]

opaque means impenetrable to light

No it doesn't. Opacity is a measure of an objects penetrability by radiation. Does not have to be light, but can be. And an opaque object DOES NOT have to be totally impenetrable.

Describing an object as opaque is simply saying the object is not transparent. The OP would need to define exactly how opaque the bag is if he wanted to say it as totally impenetrable by light. Or use a more accurate word to describe the object.


This is why bathroom glass is called opaque when light can clearly pass through it, and why so many people go through life thinking opaque means partially see-thru.

https://www.google.com/search?q=opaq...=1920&bih=1009



That said, why wouldn't you pay $100 for a bet with a probability of winning worth $150?

[mebaran]

That said, why wouldn't you pay $100 for a bet with a probability of winning worth $150?

If your bankroll was $1,000, this is a very bad bet to make. Risk of ruin.

[Optional]

If your bankroll was $1,000, this is a very bad bet to make. Risk of ruin.

Ty. Didn't think that out before asking.

[Kaabee]

No it doesn't. Opacity is a measure of an objects penetrability by radiation. Does not have to be light, but can be. And an opaque object DOES NOT have to be totally impenetrable.

Describing an object as opaque is simply saying the object is not transparent. The OP would need to define exactly how opaque the bag is if he wanted to say it as totally impenetrable by light. Or use a more accurate word to describe the object.


This is why bathroom glass is called opaque when light can clearly pass through it, and why so many people go through life thinking opaque means partially see-thru.

https://www.google.com/search?q=opaq...=1920&bih=1009



That said, why wouldn't you pay $100 for a bet with a probability of winning worth $150?

dictionary definition is impenetrable to light. and obviously what the op meant is that you can't tell which marble is which by seeing through it.

[BeatingBaseball]

Once again, my money is down in a heartbeat.

Will also pay $10 to any and all potential participants who would like to sell the rights to their shot.

[Optional]

...

[Lookingtostart]

Davidsiegel, you better be going somewhere with this...

[davidsiegel]

Oh yes, I am. Some people are already there but most are not.

[HUY]

yes

[yisman]

Yes, without a doubt

[statnerds]

of course

[thehoorse]

The ROI is to the gambler's advantage should they win, but since you only get one chance I would not take the bet.

[bztips]

Blax0r is exactly right; the "correct" answer could be different for different people. In the context of Kelly, it will all come down to your personal level of (relative) risk aversion, which in turn determines whether you should be using "full" Kelly, some fraction of it (if you are relatively more risk averse), or some multiple of it (if you are relatively less risk averse).

[James D]

Blax0r is exactly right; the "correct" answer could be different for different people. In the context of Kelly, it will all come down to your personal level of (relative) risk aversion, which in turn determines whether you should be using "full" Kelly, some fraction of it (if you are relatively more risk averse), or some multiple of it (if you are relatively less risk averse).

We have tried in both of Davids examples to get a clearer picture of our bankroll but he does not want to share that info with us. This makes all of our answers as much a guess as anything else.

[James D]

Thanks to those who played my first question. The second is a follow-up ...

I have an opaque bag containing 100 balls identical except for color. 99 of the balls are white and 1 is black. I put $14,900 on the table. If you put $100 of your money on the table, you can draw a single ball out of the bag one time. If you draw a white ball, you lose your $100. If you draw the black ball, you take the entire $15,000. You only get to do this one time, and there are no tricks - I have the cash on the table already. Assume this is a real proposition and that you have as much money as you currently have. I'm not going to tell you how big your bankroll is - look at your own balance sheet and make your own decision.

NOW do you take the bet?

Why not ask this question

Do you take the bet if your bankroll is

A 800
B 3200
C 10000
D 55000

My answers would be

A NO
B NO
C Yes
D Yes

Though I do look forward to seeing where David is going.

[Conan]

yes

[Miz]

And an opaque object DOES NOT have to be totally impenetrable.

Describing an object as opaque is simply saying the object is not transparent. The OP would need to define exactly how opaque the bag is if he wanted to say it as totally impenetrable by light. Or use a more accurate word to describe the object.


This is why bathroom glass is called opaque when light can clearly pass through it, and why so many people go through life thinking opaque means partially see-thru.

This is how I interpreted the opaque statement (to mean partially see-through), although with all the ambiguity I probably won't use that word any more. Maybe I goofed... but why not say a black bag? Why opaque? To me it nearly implies partially see-through.

Ah well, carry on friends.

[Optional]

This is how I interpreted the opaque statement (to mean partially see-through), although with all the ambiguity I probably won't use that word any more. Maybe I goofed... but why not say a black bag? Why opaque? To me it nearly implies partially see-through.

Ah well, carry on friends.

The word has been corrupted by colloquial usage. I'd personally say you are 'more correct' than those saying it only means impenetrable by light, but both opinions are kind of correct these days.

I think the original meaning is interesting to know though.

[Miz]

Good thoughts. Yep, I think I'll just lose that word from my vocab, since it can misinterpreted ... and mean nearly the opposite of what the person intends

[a4u2fear]

1/100 = 1% chance of being right.

100/(14900+100)=.66% break even.

If I'm right this is a +EV play for one selection, but most bettors want a larger edge.

[thehoorse]

This is how I interpreted the opaque statement (to mean partially see-through), although with all the ambiguity I probably won't use that word any more. Maybe I goofed... but why not say a black bag? Why opaque? To me it nearly implies partially see-through.

Ah well, carry on friends.

My original answer is that I would not take the bet (although the ROI is favorable) since you only get one chance (assuming all conditions are as David describes). However, if by "opaque" David means you cannot verify that there is at least one black ball in the bag and no more than 99 white balls, then my answer remains no, but the reason changes because I can not verify that I am not being scammed.

[Kaabee]

The word has been corrupted by colloquial usage. I'd personally say you are 'more correct' than those saying it only means impenetrable by light, but both opinions are kind of correct these days.

I think the original meaning is interesting to know though.

my 1947 dictionary hasn't been corrupted by anything.

same definition in 1828 websters they have online.

same definition in modern dictionaries.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=opaque&ls=a

[figue]

Once again, my money is down in a heartbeat.

Will also pay $10 to any and all potential participants who would like to sell the rights to their shot.

BB, do you have twitter ??

[Optional]

my 1947 dictionary hasn't been corrupted by anything.

same definition in 1828 websters they have online.

same definition in modern dictionaries.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=opaque&ls=a

It still doesn't mean the bag the OP described as opaque can't be seen through.

But quite a few of those do contradict me. I think it best I just concede you are correct than continue to argue a point I am over whelmed with proof against me. I'm not an expert in etymology so may be confused about my facts somewhere.

There is an interesting scientific explanation for what I have been trying to say. I'll have a search and see if i can find something. It uses examples like photography opaques (which can be see through) and opaque glass. Maybe I have forgotten something or got it twisted in my memory.