Wut



That's not how math works...

Ok I have time to make a proper post now. Firstly, ho lee fuk, I understand where we are not getting eachother now (and yes you could say it is possibly to do with me being an idiot lmao) but I never would've if it was just people quoting the same equation at me instead of you typing this out (and also your post before this but not going to bother quoting both apart since they say the same thing in a different way). So, thanks, will rep in a minute.

I'll try to explain where I was coming from but it will be in my usual roundabout way so please bear with me lmao.

Firstly, I know that before the draw even starts everyone has a 1/35 chance at the small tv. Mentioning that it could be a higher chance (or 0 for the people already knocked out) was meaning directly before the small tv draw, not from before all of the draws. It was more of a side note, which is why I only mentioned it once (apart from questioning why it was so stupid to say, since I hadn't picked up on the fact they apparently thought I meant before all the draws), and used a 1/35 chance for the rest of the conversation.

The problem we have is that you are saying (and everyone else I guess) that there is a 1/35 chance to win the small tv, and a 34/35 chance to win another prize which is true, but to me it only makes sense to group the other prizes together like that is if the other prizes are all the same thing.

Which I think is where we have come apart. You seem to be assuming that all the other prizes are the same (to use your example, post-it notes, or bullets that are all the same apart from the ******* one lmao), and if you are right in assuming that then I agree that you only have a 1/35 chance of winning the small tv, and a 34/35 chance of winning the post-it notes. Which of course means you only have a small chance of winning both tvs (1/1225) and a much higher chance of winning post-it notes and the big tv, because there are 34 people in the draw to win the tv who have previously won post-it notes and only one who has previously won a tv.

My problem is, I was assuming that all of the other small prizes were different. For example 1. deck of cards, 2. post-it notes 3. a tie and so on. Which hopefully if I am explaining it right, you will see that there is only one person with each prize in the draw for the big tv, making the odds equal to win the small tv/big tv combo as another individual prize/big tv combo. Which brings us back to me saying 1/35 since if everyone has equal chance and there's 35 people then that's just the way it goes. Similarly if there was some things that cropped up twice in the prize draw, for example a deck of cards, yes you would have more chance of winning the deck of cards/big tv combo, than winning a small tv/big tv combo, post-it/big tv combo or anything else, but I was assuming each prize cropped up once and so was individual and equal (with the number of each prize being offered, not value wise, obviously).

So if you assumed rightly that all the other prizes were the same, and I assumed wrongly that every single prize was different, then I 100% agree that I was wrong to say the odds are equal, and it is 100% the case that your odds of winning the small tv/big tv combo were way low.

Not sure if I missed that he said all the other prizes were the same due to it being 6amish when i started posting lol, or if it wasn't mentioned and I assumed something different to everyone else here.

Thank you, and sorry everyone for taking so long to figure it out, but just quoting the same equation at me was not helping because I was assuming that all the prizes were different things

Now everyone was like "omg so funny lol such a coincidence", while i was doing the math and calculating the probability of him getting both tvs and well lets just say that bitch is on my aim.

Read the rest of the thread mayne, no point in me saying the same things again, but you will probably get some lulz at my expense

1. The original premise of the post was that she rigged it for him to win two TVs. I think that would explain why everyone was simply lumping the other 34/35 prizes together. So the definition of the problem was really only focused on the small TV and the big TV.

2. Yes, if every prize was different (pen, pencil, post-it, stapler, etc) then the chances of getting a specific item and a big TV (I want a stapler and a big TV) are the same chances as getting any other specific item and a big TV (or a small TV and a big TV). Again though, nobody was arguing about the chances of Timothy to win a stapler and the big TV

Yeah I know that, but my point from the beginning was it was no more unlikely that he won a tv and a tv than someone else (or him for that matter) winning a stapler and a tv, so that the odds weren't that low, they were the same odds as anyone else and their individual prize so there was no huge reason to suspect rigged. But that was assuming all the other prizes were different. Of course of the small tv was the only individual prize in that lot then odds are lower and it looks more suspect.

I understand that no one would give a fk about the stapler because it's a stapler, but the actual odds of it happening would be the same, if all the prizes were different.


Tbh I did try to explain myself on that several times (although I didn't very specifically state that I thought all the prizes were different as I hadn't picked up that other people thought differently), but clearly I am pretty poor at that lol. So pretty much this:


My bad. At least you all got some wtf is going on lulz in this thread right?

Most people don't realise how often they experience 1/1225 events in real life. For example, 1/1225 is very close to the odds of rolling two 12s in a row with two fair dice, I doubt OP would be making this thread if she'd rolled back to back 12s during a game of monopoly.

Not saying she didn't cheat, but just because something unlikely happened doesn't mean she did.

You're right I haven't.

But like I said, I think the problem I have in this particular scenario is whoever won the second drawn guaranteed to have won a prize already, just by the nature of the way the draw was run.

That the first prize won by the winner was the tv is no more unlikely then the first prize being won by the winner of the big prize is any of the other 34 prizes.

They all had the same odds to win twice, because it was guaranteed by the nature of the draw that whoever won it would be their second prize.

I think this is where I am getting stuck.

I understand if there were two draws out of 35 people where there was only one winner in each, it would be very lucky for one person to win both, 1/1225, but I'm this case things are a little different.

Winning a pack of gum and winning the big TV, that's not suspiciousBUTwinning the small tvANDthe big TV is suspicious, so that's the only thing we are concerned with, winningBOTHprizes.

You know, it seems like you dont quite get it yet lol. If everyone got a prize or just the one guy got a prize on the first round is irrelevant, the chances of him getting the two tvs are 1/1225.


Doesnt matter if the other 34 prizes were completely ****, or if there were no other 34 prizes to begin with and just one small tv. The fact that he won the two tvs, clearly the two best gifts, were 1/1225.

Two twelves in a row would be 1/12 * 1/12, which is 1/144. FAR more likely than 1/1225.


On top of that, its not just any random person getting two 12's in a row, that would just be a coincidence. But what if the owner of the dices told 10 people to enter a game with 10 bucks entry, and that whoever got the most points out of 4 dice throws would get everyone's money, and surprise surprise, the owner of the dices rolled two twelves in a row? That would raise suspicion right?

Its the same **** here, but with an even much smaller chance (1/1225).



To make it simpler, out of the 35 people who were on the raffle, only one of those was dating the person in charge of drawing the names.

What are the chances of a random person getting the two tvs? 1/1225. Weird enough... but wait for it...

What are the chances that the one person who is dating the woman in charge of the draw, gets the two tvs? Thats (1/35) * (1/35) * (1/35), so the chances of the one person who is dating and in love with the woman in charge of the draw get the two tvs, are 1/42,875 LOL.



Now whats more likely, a 1/42,875 happening... or she being a lying two faced slut? Math doesnt lie baby

Strong stats knowledge. Firstly, two 12s is 1/36 * 1/36 for 1/1296. Secondly, the fact that he's dating the women in charge of the draw doesn't affect the probability of him winning two TVs unless you assume she's rigged the raffle, in which case it doesn't affect the odds in the way you described anyway.

Your dad shouldn't have been a gullible kunt idiot and let an employee be in charge of distributing prizes.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cookiefiend again.

I thought of another way to explain what I mean .

Stop trying to neg me just because I'm beating you

OMFG still? What you have not listed there is all the possible scenarios where you DON'T win the big TV.
So you need "Prize 1 + Jack chit 1" all the way through "Prize 35 + Jack chit 35" that's 1225 combinations.
I THINK what you're trying to argue is that you're just as likely to win the stapler + the big TV as you are the small TV + big TV, which is true, 1 in 1225 chance. 1190 of the possible outcomes do not include winning the big TV.

I'm trying to buy you a pair of pants, one rep at a time.