
Take the dice and go home.
Upon reconsideration... offer the "friend" the same wager.
I may be way off here, but if my probabilityfu hasn't entirely failed me...
One die for a 4 or 5 or 6 == 3:6 , 50% , to win even money == "fair game"
Two dice for at least one 5 or 6 == 8:36 , 22% , to win even money == about a 55% house edge?
Three dice for at least one 6 == 7:216 , 3% , to win even money == about a 94% house edge?
One die for a 4 or 5 or 6 == 3:6 , 50% , to win even money == "fair game"
Two dice for at least one 5 or 6 == 20:36 , 55% , to win even money == 11% house edge?
Three dice for at least one 6 == 91:216 , 42% , to win even money == about a 16% house edge?
Not playing is still the best option.
modified 15Mar17 17:59pm.





Bash his friend over the head and take the money.





I thought of that myself immediately, but decided I like my friends ...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...






1) 1 dice, 4, 5, or 6 wins: 3/6 = 50%
2) 2 dice, 5 or 6 wins: (1  (4/6)^2) = 55.6%
3) 3 dice, 6 wins: (1  (5/6)^3) = 42.1%
So the best options in order are 2, 1, then 3
EDIT: Including just leaving with $300 (option #4), the option order is 2 > 1 = 4 > 3.
modified 15Mar17 16:40pm.





These are the chances to go home with $600, but there is the option  of 100%  to take home $300!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





You asked for the best option which would be option #2 statistically speaking  55.6% to double your money. This can easily be shown with a sample set:
100 rolls, double or nothing @ 55.6% = $333.6
100 rolls, $300 @ 100% = $300





Double or nothing means you can not have $333.6... It is either $600 or $0!
So 55.6% of $600 is much worst than 100% of $300...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





That's to show general value per roll. Each value is 0 or 600 (double or nothing). (55.6 x 600)/100 = 333.6. Since it's all or nothing, you could also do (600 x .556). Both calculate the same thing  the average value per roll. The point is that the perroll evaluation of $333.6 is greater than the $300 evaluation (300 x 1.0). This isn't to show the money you earn but to weight and compare the options.
If you'd like to include personality, monetary situation, and other perperson variables then even though you will statistically get more value out of the 55.6% option the guaranteed $300 may seem more appealing depending on the relative value of $300 to that individual.





If I'm not mistaken...
There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners.  20 winning outcomes
There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners.  91 winning outcomes
What did I miss?
Edit: I was mistaken. I missed a whole bunch of winning outcomes.
modified 15Mar17 23:00pm.





PIEBALDconsult wrote: What did I miss?
That the outcome of each dice is independent, as there is no meaning of the order or on which dice you got the winner number...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





Yes, I understand that, but I see where I went wrong  I have since decided to graph it out...
modified 15Mar17 19:18pm.





PIEBALDconsult wrote: There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners.
How did you get 8 winning combinations? If the first die already wins (in twqo out of six cases), the second one is irrelevant in any case. These already are twelve winning combinations. And then those cases where the first die 'misses', but the second one wins are added.
Chance that the first one wins: 2/6.
Chance that the first one mises, bt the second one wins: 4/6 * 2/6 = 8/36 (probably what you thought)
Total chance 2/6 + 8/36 = 12/36 + 8 /36 = 20/36 = 0,56 (rounded).
PIEBALDconsult wrote: There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners.
Similar calculation:
Chance that the first one already wins: 1/6
Chance that the second one wins if the first fails: 5/6 * 1/6 = 5/36
Chance that the third one winds when the first two fail: 5/6 * 5/6 * 1/6 = 25/216
Adding it all up: 1/6 + 5/36 + 25/216 = (36 + 30 + 25) / 216 = 71/216 = 0,33 (rounded).
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.





Yes, I already found and corrected my error.
CDP1802 wrote: Chance that the first one mises, bt the second one wins: 4/6 * 2/6 = 8/36 (probably what you thought)
Nope.
CDP1802 wrote: Adding it all up: 1/6 + 5/36 + 25/216 = (36 + 30 + 25) / 216 = 71/216 = 0,33 (rounded).
Recheck your math.
modified 15Mar17 18:06pm.





The easier way to calculate this imo is to calculate what loses then subtract that from 1. This way the second example is simply 1  (5/6)^3 = 0.4213... ~ 42.1%. Also in the last step of the second example, (36 + 30 + 25)/216 = 91/216 ~ 42.1% not 71/216 ~ 33%





Oooops. It was late.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.





Where it's kinda like this?[^]
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit.
You're welcome.





As a matter of fact, yes!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!






I like that song, haven't heard in a while.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!






kmoorevs wrote: Now begins the actual grunge work of migrating a few dozen reports from .rdl format to .rdlc.
In the olden days of engineering (think Tesla and Edison) we would have apprentices to do that grunt work that would follow our brilliant engineering.
Marc
Latest Article  Merkle Trees
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you.  DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity.  CDP1802





Marc Clifton wrote: we would have apprentices
...wolf howls...
I tried that several years ago...didn't work out for them. I'd rather screw it up myself as then there's no question who to blame.
"Go forth into the source"  Neal Morse





OK, So I run up VS2017 and get it to create a blank Xamarin Forms cross platform app from it's built in templates.
And "Build"
...
...
...
18 errors, 2 warnings.
"InitializeComponent" does not exist.
"Certificate expired"
"System" not found.
...
OK, lets see ... check out the .cs file, and there is calls InitialiseComponent  right click, "go to definition"  file opens, there it is.
Close the file again. And ... all the errors vanish.
Run it and it works.
So, you have to open a file to tell it where the stuff it just created is? O....Kay...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...





The componentization of VS2017 is nice, especially since I work exclusively in native C++, However, I've been underwhelmed by the rest of the release. The CMake support is clunky, at best, and their C++17 support is lacking. I ran into a bug with the RC version that was so blatant, I wondered what else their nontesting let through (and Griff found at lease one!)



