FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  
des; it is evident that the present value or worth of each of their expectations will be L25, and the probabilities 25/50 or 1/2. For, if they had agreed to divide the prize between them, according as the bets should be at the time of their starting, they would each of them be entitled to L25; but if A had been thought so much superior to B that the bets had been 3 to 2 in his favour, then the real value of A's expectation would have been L30, and that of B's only L20, and their several probabilities 30/50 and 20/50. Example II. Let us suppose three horses to start for a sweepstake, namely, A, B, and C, and that the odds are 8 to 6 A against B, and 6 to 4 B against C--what are the odds--A against C, and the field against A? Answer:--2 to 1 A against C, and 10 to 8, or 5 to 4 the field against A. For A's expectation is 8 B's expectation is 6 C's expectation is 4 ---- 18 But if the bets had been 7 to 4 A against B; and even money B against C, then the odds would have been 8 to 7 the field against A, as shown in the following scheme:-- 7 A 4 B 4 C ---- 15 But as this is the basis upon which all the rest depends, another example or two may be required to make it as plain as possible. Example III. Suppose the same three as before, and the common bets 7 to 4 A against B; 21 to 20 (or 'gold to silver') B against C; we must state it thus:--7 guineas to 4 A against B; and 4 guineas to L4, B against C; which being reduced into shillings, the scheme will stand as follows:-- 147 A's expectation. 81 B's expectation. 80 C's expectation.----311 By which it will be 164 to 147 the field against A, (something more than 39 to 35). Now, if we compare this with the last example, we may conclude it to be right; for if it had been 40 to 35, then it would have been 8 to 7, exactly as in the last example. But, as some persons may be at a loss to know why the numbers 39 and 35 are selected, it is requisite to show the same by means of the Sliding Rule. Set 164 upon the line A to 147 upon the slider B, and then look along till you see two whole numbers which stand exactly one against the other (or as near as you can come), which, in this case, you find to be 39 on A, standing against 35 on the slider B (very nearly). But as 164/311 and 147/311 are in the lowest terms, there are no less numbers, in the same proportion, as 164 to 147,--39 and 35 being the nearest,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
expectation
 

numbers

 

Example

 

scheme

 

slider

 

guineas

 

probabilities


conclude

 

shillings

 
reduced
 

compare

 
standing
 

proportion

 
nearest

lowest

 

selected

 
requisite
 

persons

 

Sliding

 
favour
 
superior

thought

 
expectations
 

agreed

 

present

 
evident
 

divide

 

starting


entitled

 

suppose

 
horses
 
required
 

depends

 

Suppose

 

silver


common

 

Answer

 

sweepstake