I mean clearly if it's a mistake this is a matter of terminology not intelligence, but could you explain how it's wrong?
If A wins, B pays A $1. If B wins, A pays B $N. For the bet to be fair (zero expectation value), the probability that A wins needs to be p=N/(N+1) and that B wins needs to be 1-p=1/(N+1). My understanding of what "odds" are is the ratio of the outcome probabilities: p:(1-p) = p/(1-p) = N/1 = N:1. (This is why the "log odds" are log(p/(1-p)).)
Do they use a different notion of "odds" in sports gambling?
Turns out the only interesting thing is how sloppy my reading is (and how quick I am to blame others for that sloppiness…).
I simply missed the second “each” below:
> Should space-time be shown to be quantum, the loser will give to each of the winners, one ITEM of their choice. If the alternative hypothesis is deemed to be correct, the losers will each give 5,000 ITEMS to the winner.
It's not $20. It's 20 British pence - about 25 cents.... "Examples include some crisps, a bazinga ball, a small amount of olive oil, balsamic vinegar, or wine."
I think, reading it, it could be £1000 worth of wine. For example two cases of decent Gevrey Chambertin, I myself could bring myself to accept such a thing.
If A wins, B pays A $1. If B wins, A pays B $N. For the bet to be fair (zero expectation value), the probability that A wins needs to be p=N/(N+1) and that B wins needs to be 1-p=1/(N+1). My understanding of what "odds" are is the ratio of the outcome probabilities: p:(1-p) = p/(1-p) = N/1 = N:1. (This is why the "log odds" are log(p/(1-p)).)
Do they use a different notion of "odds" in sports gambling?