Fair? No way to sell a cue!

kingwang said:
The flaw in this situation is that you neglect the possibility of him losing the cue. You assume that its a "freeroll" for money, but the flip side of that is that he loses the cue and doesn't get its entire value back in return. This is because the cue is technically worth $100, if 10 people are willing to buy in for $10 a spot, it is no longer a $50 cue. This is what is called a "profit".

8-Baller makes a similar point, so I suggest you review his post too.
Click to expand...

I didn't neglect that possibility at all. The cue in my example has a true cost exactly $50 to the person who purchased it for $50. If he can realize more revenue than $50 then he has made a profit above what the cue cost.

That is my point. In the raffle system the seller cannot lose the "cost" of the cue as long as they sell enough tickets to cover that cost. Then if they put themselves in the raffle they have given themselves a chance to keep both the cue and the money.

So, back to my example.

10 spots at $10 a spot. 7 spots sell to customers and 3 spots sell to the raffle holder. At this point the raffle holder has made $70 regardless of who gets the cue. He has his $50 investment into the cue cost back and made 40% profit on the cue.

If he does not "win" the cue then he simply takes the $50 and buys another cue.

If he does "win" the cue then he has made 140% profit on the cue because he still owns it and can resell it for at least his cost of $50.

So in the situation I proposed the raffle holder cannot lose, he makes money no matter what.

Not that he should lose money. But the whole idea of the raffle is to give everyone an equal shot at the product and this scenario somehow (the math is beyond me) does not give the "customers" an equal shot at the cue. It puts the raffle holder in a strong position where he has a great chance to take the money and keep the cue. This may not be illegal but it is somehow unfair.

Although I think it's probably illegal under some laws that govern raffles.

http://rafflefaq.com/united-states-raffle-laws/ Raffle laws by state.

Lastly, yes, the person buying the ticket needs to decide if the per ticket price is worth the it to them to attempt to win the item. I just think that the person who runs a raffle should not be a participant in it to avoid any controversy. And it's probably a good idea to keep all participants visible as members of the site. After all when I hold a raffle in Vegas I don't have phone-in orders for tickets.
 
Last edited:
perplexing

oneballeddie said:
If Monty offers the switch you should take it. Your door has a 1/3 chance of having the prize while the other door now has a 2/3 chance.

Usually this answer sets off a lot of argument.
Click to expand...

It would seem you are correct after I did a little research.
I read about 3 articles on this, and even tried a JAVA applet that simulates the situation.

Instead of polluting this thread I may start a thread in the NPR section, but I first want to actually understand why the other door has any more of a chance than the original door picked. Whew, I can see why so many math experts/PHDs thought it was 50/50 like me, and are supposedly WRONG. :( Whew, this is so weird.
 
whitey2 said:
It would seem you are correct after I did a little research.
I read about 3 articles on this, and even tried a JAVA applet that simulates the situation.

Instead of polluting this thread I may start a thread in the NPR section, but I first want to actually understand why the other door has any more of a chance than the original door picked. Whew, I can see why so many math experts/PHDs thought it was 50/50 like me, and are supposedly WRONG. :( Whew, this is so weird.
Click to expand...


Well after re-reading my Calculus and Econ text books.

I found the fundamental formula of gambling:


log(1 - DC)

N = ----------------

log(1 - p)

Then I took a sample and looked at the probabilities:

Using the Probabliity density fuction:

1/ Standard Deviation x square root of 2 x pie x exp ( - (x-Mu)squared/ 2standard Deviation squared.)

I also figured out teh Cummulative distribution 1/2 (1+erf (x-Mu)/Standiard Deviationx root of 2.

20 samples results:

1 0.682689492137
2 0.954499736104
3 0.997300203937
4 0.999936657516
5 0.999999426697
6 0.999999998027


7. 0.80 1.28155
8. 0.90 1.64485
9. 0.95 1.95996
10. 0.98 2.32635
11. 0.99 2.57583
12. .095 2.80703
13. 0.998 3.09023
14. 0.999

15. .984445
16. .932423
17. .9528023
18. .992409
19. .9524224
20. .922551
___________________________________________________
The answers 42.

can someone please check and confirm with me?
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
So in the situation I proposed the raffle holder cannot lose, he makes money no matter what.
Click to expand...


The only reason why this is true is because the owner is able to buy a $100 cue for $50.

Donald
 
I didn't know you spoke Chinese.

Duce said:
Well after re-reading my Calculus and Econ text books.

I found the fundamental formula of gambling:


log(1 - DC)

N = ----------------

log(1 - p)

Then I took a sample and looked at the probabilities:

Using the Probabliity density fuction:

1/ Standard Deviation x square root of 2 x pie x exp ( - (x-Mu)squared/ 2standard Deviation squared.)

I also figured out teh Cummulative distribution 1/2 (1+erf (x-Mu)/Standiard Deviationx root of 2.

20 samples results:

1 0.682689492137
2 0.954499736104
3 0.997300203937
4 0.999936657516
5 0.999999426697
6 0.999999998027


7. 0.80 1.28155
8. 0.90 1.64485
9. 0.95 1.95996
10. 0.98 2.32635
11. 0.99 2.57583
12. .095 2.80703
13. 0.998 3.09023
14. 0.999

15. .984445
16. .932423
17. .9528023
18. .992409
19. .9524224
20. .922551
___________________________________________________
The answers 42.

can someone please check and confirm with me?
Click to expand...
 
Duce said:
Well after re-reading my Calculus and Econ text books.

I found the fundamental formula of gambling:


log(1 - DC)

N = ----------------

log(1 - p)

Then I took a sample and looked at the probabilities:

Using the Probabliity density fuction:

1/ Standard Deviation x square root of 2 x pie x exp ( - (x-Mu)squared/ 2standard Deviation squared.)

I also figured out teh Cummulative distribution 1/2 (1+erf (x-Mu)/Standiard Deviationx root of 2.

20 samples results:

1 0.682689492137
2 0.954499736104
3 0.997300203937
4 0.999936657516
5 0.999999426697
6 0.999999998027


7. 0.80 1.28155
8. 0.90 1.64485
9. 0.95 1.95996
10. 0.98 2.32635
11. 0.99 2.57583
12. .095 2.80703
13. 0.998 3.09023
14. 0.999

15. .984445
16. .932423
17. .9528023
18. .992409
19. .9524224
20. .922551
___________________________________________________
The answers 42.

can someone please check and confirm with me?
Click to expand...


Easier method:

A man buys 5 tickets in a raffle in which 100 tickets are sold. If
there are three prizes in the raffle, find the probability that the
man:

(a) wins exactly one prize;
(b) wins at least one prize.

Let C(a,b) = a!/(b!*(a-b)!).

(a) C(3,1)*C(97,4)/C(100,5) is the probability of choosing
one out of the three winning tickets and choosing four
out of the 97 losing tickets as a favorable result of
choosing five out of the 100 tickets sold.

(b) This probability is 1 - C(3,0)*C(97,5)/C(100,5), since
the last term is the probability of choosing zero out of
the three winning tickets and five out of the 97 losing
tickets.


The probabilities increase with the number of tickets purchased. While the individual probability remains the same for any one ticket, the cumulative probability of a given outcome when multiple tickets are held is greater. In other words, the house holds the advantage.

Joe
 
Bamacues said:
Easier method:

A man buys 5 tickets in a raffle in which 100 tickets are sold. If
there are three prizes in the raffle, find the probability that the
man:

(a) wins exactly one prize;
(b) wins at least one prize.

Let C(a,b) = a!/(b!*(a-b)!).

(a) C(3,1)*C(97,4)/C(100,5) is the probability of choosing
one out of the three winning tickets and choosing four
out of the 97 losing tickets as a favorable result of
choosing five out of the 100 tickets sold.

(b) This probability is 1 - C(3,0)*C(97,5)/C(100,5), since
the last term is the probability of choosing zero out of
the three winning tickets and five out of the 97 losing
tickets.


The probabilities increase with the number of tickets purchased. While the individual probability remains the same for any one ticket, the cumulative probability of a given outcome when multiple tickets are held is greater. In other words, the house holds the advantage.

Joe
Click to expand...

My head is starting to hurt!
 
8-Baller said:
The only reason why this is true is because the owner is able to buy a $100 cue for $50.

Donald
Click to expand...

Right. That was why I posed it that way. This was in no way intended to cover all possibilities.

Normally however one cannot raffle off a product for more than it's retail price, legally speaking. What that price "is" is another debate. Take our $100 cue though and make a raffle at $120 and let the owner of the cue buy two spots and then he still gets the full retail value of the cue and two free shots at the money.

The point is that a person who runs the raffle should be excluded from it. Nor should they do any backroom deals to allow others to "buy" tickets with the same intentions of having free shots at retaining the cue and pocketing the rest of the money. NOT TO SAY THAT ANYONE HERE HAS DONE THIS - NOT POINTING ANY FINGERS.

I am just discussing scenarios so that we all have a better understanding of how things work.

There is a reason that raffles are regulated in just about every state in the USA. That reason is manipulation. (and taxes/fees for the government's cut) :-)
 
I completely disagree with the suggestion that a seller or a seller's friends should not be able to buy raffle tickets.

Plain and simple fact: The EV of each ticket buyer does not change. The EV of the seller does not change. Whether or not this EV is positive is wholly based on the opinion of the buyer.

Thus, I don't see a good reason to ban a perfectly legit practice that has practical upsides. For example, suppose I have a cue that only 30 people are interested in, then we can still run the raffle using a powerball option. Or, suppose we want to run a cross-raffle with people from other forums, like onepocket.org. Or maybe the seller actually does have friends interested in the cue. Or, as previously mentioned, what if a few people back out of the raffle?

Also, I don't see why people are so freaked out that the seller might be making a profit. Isn't that the point of selling? I don't see anything wrong with raffling at a higher price than selling a cue entirely for more than its worth.
 
kingwang said:
Also, I don't see why people are so freaked out that the seller might be making a profit. Isn't that the point of selling? I don't see anything wrong with raffling at a higher price than selling a cue entirely for more than its worth.
Click to expand...


Because it is not only ILLEGAL, but UNETHICAL as well. The intent of raffles are not meant to make a profit, but to offer a given pool of people the opportunity at an item that they may not otherwise afford to purchase...and to raise money for a non-profit organization, or a charitable cause. They are not meant for someone to profit off a group of people.

Honestly...those of you here who continue to try and justify making a profit are falling way short against the undeniable facts.

Additionally...when a raffle is being run, within the constrains of the law, the items available are being donated generally by businesses. The individual organizing the raffle does not have a vested interest in any of the items...which is why they are generally allowed to participate as well. In the raffle scenarios here...that is far from the case...and the organizer/seller should not be allowed to participate...and because non-members identities cannot be verified as NOT being the organizer/seller...they should not be allowed to participate as well.

As to opening up the raffles and cross-posting it to several different billiards forums...go ahead and try, and see just how fast the powers-that-be shut it down! This practice is nothing more than using AZB as a springboard for a net-wide free advertising sale. While no one can discount the marketing strategy, it is HIGHLY UNETHICAL! Not to mention an abuse of the privilege of being able to sell here at no cost to the seller.

Please note that I am not saying that all who choose to raffle here are guilty of this practice...but there are enough of those here that are abusing the privilege given to them...that it can come to no good end....and possibly end the raffle option all together.

Lisa
 
Last edited:
ridewiththewind said:
Because it is not only ILLEGAL, but UNETHICAL as well. The intent of raffles are not meant to make a profit, but to offer a given pool of people the opportunity at an item that they may not otherwise afford to purchase...and to raise money for a non-profit organization, or a charitable cause. They are not meant for someone to profit off a group of people.

Honestly...those of you here who continue to try and justify making a profit are falling way short against the undeniable facts.

Additionally...when a raffle is being run, within the constrains of the law, the items available are being donated generally by businesses. The individual organizing the raffle does not have a vested interest in any of the items...which is why they are generally allowed to participate as well. In the raffle scenarios here...that is far from the case...and the organizer/seller should not be allowed to participate...and because non-members identities cannot be verified as NOT being the organizer/seller...they should not be allowed to participate as well.

As to opening up the raffles and cross-posting it to several different billiards forums...go ahead and try, and see just how fast the powers-that-be shut it down! This practice is nothing more than using AZB as a springboard for a net-wide free advertising sale. While no one can discount the marketing strategy, it is HIGHLY UNETHICAL! Not to mention an abuse of the privilege of being able to sell here at no cost to the seller.

Please note that I am not saying that all who choose to raffle here are guilty of this practice...but there are enough of those here that are abusing the privilege given to them...that it can come to no good end....and possibly end the raffle option all together.

Lisa
Click to expand...


Tap, tap, tap....great points here.
 
Bamacues said:
Easier method:

A man buys 5 tickets in a raffle in which 100 tickets are sold. If
there are three prizes in the raffle, find the probability that the
man:

(a) wins exactly one prize;
(b) wins at least one prize.

Let C(a,b) = a!/(b!*(a-b)!).

(a) C(3,1)*C(97,4)/C(100,5) is the probability of choosing
one out of the three winning tickets and choosing four
out of the 97 losing tickets as a favorable result of
choosing five out of the 100 tickets sold.

(b) This probability is 1 - C(3,0)*C(97,5)/C(100,5), since
the last term is the probability of choosing zero out of
the three winning tickets and five out of the 97 losing
tickets.


The probabilities increase with the number of tickets purchased. While the individual probability remains the same for any one ticket, the cumulative probability of a given outcome when multiple tickets are held is greater. In other words, the house holds the advantage.

Joe
Click to expand...

Yes, smart man Bama. 1 is the outcome in which an event happens. And 1- the probability of all the entities combined, is the probability we are looking for. I guess I forgot to carry the 1.
The answer to the ultimate question is 43, instead of 42. LOL!
 
Last edited:
guess the bottom line is if the seller overinflates the overall price of the total of raffle tickets and then once he has the actual value of the cue price purchased by legit ticket holder... he fakes the rest he has a chance to win back his cue? am i right here?

either eway hes ahead either with the money his cue is worth or by chance he gets lucky and draws the number then hes waaay ahead!!!!


what i dont get is that alot of guys here sell alot of stuff and they wont fork over a membership! im sorry but if your movin cues and makin money dont you owe it to the site just a bit as well as your reputation of being a member?
 
nwtflogan said:
what i dont get is that alot of guys here sell alot of stuff and they wont fork over a membership! im sorry but if your movin cues and makin money dont you owe it to the site just a bit as well as your reputation of being a member?
Click to expand...

Thats a good point, I like this forum. I'll donate a little bit. Not much but a few bucks wouldn't hurt.

Well, the only thing I can say is, As a Seller and as a Comsumer, we should ask a lot questions when doing anything. Get all the information straight. And try to come on a compromise before we get into any transactions.

Forrest, Forrest Gump
"That's all I have to say about that."
 
k duce pony up and become a member!! doesnt cost much compared to the profit you make on one sale really? we all owe alot to this site and without it wed be stuck with ebay and never learn or meet alot of the great people here! am i right
?
 
ridewiththewind said:
Because it is not only ILLEGAL, but UNETHICAL as well. The intent of raffles are not meant to make a profit, but to offer a given pool of people the opportunity at an item that they may not otherwise afford to purchase...and to raise money for a non-profit organization, or a charitable cause. They are not meant for someone to profit off a group of people.

Honestly...those of you here who continue to try and justify making a profit are falling way short against the undeniable facts.

Additionally...when a raffle is being run, within the constrains of the law, the items available are being donated generally by businesses. The individual organizing the raffle does not have a vested interest in any of the items...which is why they are generally allowed to participate as well. In the raffle scenarios here...that is far from the case...and the organizer/seller should not be allowed to participate...and because non-members identities cannot be verified as NOT being the organizer/seller...they should not be allowed to participate as well.

As to opening up the raffles and cross-posting it to several different billiards forums...go ahead and try, and see just how fast the powers-that-be shut it down! This practice is nothing more than using AZB as a springboard for a net-wide free advertising sale. While no one can discount the marketing strategy, it is HIGHLY UNETHICAL! Not to mention an abuse of the privilege of being able to sell here at no cost to the seller.

Please note that I am not saying that all who choose to raffle here are guilty of this practice...but there are enough of those here that are abusing the privilege given to them...that it can come to no good end....and possibly end the raffle option all together.

Lisa
Click to expand...

Wow, smart lady. Will you marry me?

LoL, if this happens i'll never win an arguement for the rest of my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top