Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Science

Odds-on Science 349

Posted by CmdrTaco from the always-bet-on-red dept.
utopia27 writes "According to article in New Scientist, a UK-based bookie will be taking bets for two weeks on major science benchmarks (specifically, odds of implementation by 2010). The ponies are life on Titan, 10,000:1, gravitational waves, 500:1, the Higgs boson, 6:1, cosmic ray origins, 4:1, and nuclear fusion, 100:1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Odds-on Science More

Odds-on Science

Comments Filter:

  • I'll bet... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:17PM (#10082496)
    Duke Nukem Forever [3drealms.com] -- 25,000:1

    (grin)
    AC

    • Re:I'll bet... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:19PM (#10082530)
      SCO showing copyrighted code in Linux: 50,000:1

      • Re:I'll bet... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Geek of Tech ( 678002 )
        SCO showing code in Linux that They own the copyright to: Infinity:1

      • Do it (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tunabomber ( 259585 )
        I know this is a joke, but you actually can "bet" on it (albeit with funny money) at TechReview's Innovation Futures [innovationfutures.com] markets. Unlike a bookie, you are betting against other investors rather than the house, which means you have more latitude when it comes to turning the odds in your favor.

        /me buys a couple shares of "NO" and waits to flip 'em off once the price gets pumped up by an influx of pessimistic /.ers

        Most of IF's predictive markets are based on economic benchmarks, but a month or so ago you coul

    • Linus [helsinki.fi] accepting a job at SCO: 1,000,000:1

    • Better Watch Out (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
      Duke Nukem Forever -- 25,000:1

      I've been a student of statistics long enough to realize that anything, now matter how unlikely, which can happen, eventually will.

      The odds of winning a lottery are remote, yet people do. The odds of three people sitting at a table, with a half dozen raffle tickets cleaning up while everyone else gets zilch nada are pretty remote, but it happened on Tuesday (fortunately they were kind and had enough schwag so I got to walk home with 5 Fullers ESB pint glasses and a nifty ba

    • My bet:

      Slashdot-proof science journal web sites -- 50,000:1

    • Cosmic Rays (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nick12534 ( 808725 )
      The origin of cosmic rays is actually pretty well understood...well, up to about 10^15 electron volts, anyway. Cosmic rays less energetic than this were almost certainly accelerated in shocks in expanding supernova remnants. A cosmic ray can pretty freely pass through the shock front, but will be reflected magnetic mirrors both before and after the shock. Every time the cosmic ray is reflected, it gains a little momentum until the shock either dies away or the cosmic ray manages to escape. The cosmic ra

  • Obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:17PM (#10082497)
    Sorry! This section of Newscientist.com is unavailable at the current time - every effort is being made to get it back up and running as quickly as possible.

    The ponies are life on Titan, 10,000:1
    Gravitational waves, 500:1
    The Higgs boson, 6:1
    Cosmic ray origins, 4:1
    Nuclear fusion, 100:1

    The New Scientist getting a good Slashdotting: priceless

  • 10000 to 1? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#10082500) Homepage
    I am reminded of a certain phrase:

    The lottery is just a tax on fools.
    • I thought it was a tax on the bad a math?
    • You have to account for both the expected payoff and the entertainment value of playing.

      Suppose that a ticket costs a dollar, and there is a 1-in-10 change of winning 9 dollars. Your expected payoff is 90 cents.

      If the excitement of playing the lottery is worth more than 10 cents, then playing the lottery is a good deal. Suppose that the excitement is worth 20 cents to you. Well, 90 cents plus 20 cents is 110 cents, on a ticket that only cost you 100 cents!

      You could blow far more money watching a movie

      • Re:playing the lottery is not stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:05PM (#10082880) Journal
        If the excitement of playing the lottery is worth more than 10 cents, then playing the lottery is a good deal. Suppose that the excitement is worth 20 cents to you. Well, 90 cents plus 20 cents is 110 cents, on a ticket that only cost you 100 cents!

        The point is that in order to be able to get excited playing lottery, you have to be bad at math. Let's suppose I offer you a heads or tails game with fair 50-50 probability split for both options. If you win, I pay you $1 (one US dollar), if I win, you pay me $100 (a hundred US dollars). You won't get excited by this game - at least not in a pleasant way. You'll rather say "what kind of a crooked game is this?". The point is that all the lotteries and casino games are as much crooked as this game, but they try to hide it in complex score counting systems. This scheme works good enough for weak minds, but I for one couldn't feel any "excitement" playing a fundamentally crooked game. I can be excited playing poker with a trusted friend, when I know it's just luck and betting strategies for both of us, but there's no point of playing if I know that he has a hidden ace under the table. That's lottery for a math-savvy person.

        • Re:playing the lottery is not stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

          by glorf ( 94990 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:18PM (#10082993)
          And I suppose that for the biology savvy person, sex is only for transmitting genetic material.

        • As my dad often said... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:31PM (#10083088) Journal
          go into any bookies' and you'll find four windows for paying in, only one window for paying out.

        • Playing the lottery is not stupid at all. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TiggertheMad ( 556308 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:43PM (#10083174) Journal
          Your analysis on the numbers alone are correct. However, you are overlooking a signifigant aspect. Most lotteries are run by some sort of state agency, and the crooked winnings are often added to the state funds. The more people that play the lottery, the more money the state takes in.

          The government has to get money somewhere for it's programs. If it isn't through lotterys it WILL be through some other form of taxation. And when was the last time that you got a tax return back from the state telling you that you had won $1 million dollars, hm?

          My odds of winning are low and the payoff is 'poor', but they are better than your odds of getting money from the IRS...
          • The only problem is the money taken in by lotteries is often used to justify cutting taxes, etc. I.E., the amount of money going through government doesn't really change. At least in NY, where the lottery revenue "earmarked" for education barely makes up for the simultaneous cut in non-lottery based state aid.

            Anyhow, would you rather the government be taxing the poor (aka desperate, bad at math, people who for some reason spend $40/week on the lottery) to make their budget or use an actual progressive ta

        • I only very occasionally play the lottery, but there is another factor. It doesn't really matter to me if it's $100 million or $50 million, it would be enough to change my life. it doesn't matter that it's only half (or a quarter or whatever) of what it would be to be "fair" - it's a large enough amount to make a big difference.

          • ...is only part of it for me, but I agree with you. Basically, I like my life just fine - but I easily get $5.00 of entertainment value out of my (rare) lottery ticket purchases. I've come up with some pretty wild schemes. The current winner, assuming a good-sized jackpot of $9 million:

            1) Split about a third between my family and myself (well, my gf counts, too).

            2) Give another third to a top-notch university in a city where I'd like to live. Two conditions: Create a world-class population institute, and

        • Re:playing the lottery is not stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Verteiron ( 224042 ) * on Thursday August 26, 2004 @08:23PM (#10083910) Homepage
          To get excited, you have to be bad at math... or you have to have been reduced to a ad-soaked stupor by the scores of mindless lottery advertisements on the radio, TV, etc. I usually turn down the radio during the ad breaks, and even so I have half the speels about "more excitement, more action, more fun!" running though my head whenever I look at a Powerball billboard (with its ever changing running total).

          Or the other line that sticks with me..

          "Powerball, it's America's game!" .. spoken by Ray Charles, no less. I'm not sure what the saddest aspect of this is...
          1) Ray Charles advertised for these people practically from his deathbed
          2) What the sentence itself says about Powerball

          or worse

          3) What the sentence itself says about America.

          I'm going home now... try to ignore the Powerball billboards... but I know I'll have to read the number anyway. To anyone strapped for cash, constantly bombarded by stories about the winners, and maybe lacking a basic knowledge of the real odds.. the lottery must be a pretty addictive and frustrating thing.
    • And this bookie is offering a tax on those too stupid to realize how easy it is to skip town in 9-1/2 years.

    • Re:10000 to 1? (Score:5, Funny)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:08PM (#10082904)
      The lottery is just a tax on fools.

      Slashdot is a lottery for those that are bad at remembering quotations.

    • A dollar a week is worthless.

      A major lottery winning in a lifetime is overwhelmingly valuable.

      Factor in entertainment value and social bennefit for the proceeds, and the lottery makes sense.

      ... not that I play of course :-)

      The only silly part is not buying all your tickets in one lump sum. With the odds against you, inflation is against you, and the money does you the most good when you're young.

      I think I'll assume I'll live to ~70 or so and go out and buy 52x40 lottery tickets. I'll never have

  • Nuclear fusion? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#10082506)
    We can easily achieve nuclear fusion. The problem is controlling and sustaining it. It should read, "Fusion power plants, 100:1", not "Nuclear fusion, 100:1."

    • Re:Nuclear fusion? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:21PM (#10082544) Homepage
      The problem is controlling and sustaining it.

      I heard that there is some scientist who has developed a system of four AI controlled robotic arms that will allow him to manually control the reaction. Apparently they hook into his nervous system. Could be interesting.

    • Re:Nuclear fusion? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jb.hl.com ( 782137 )
      And of course, not killing thousands of people in a mushroom-shaped fireball in the process. Once they get past that hurdle, we'll be home free.
      • that's fission, not fusion, and is the principle already used by nuclear power plants

        • Re:Nuclear fusion? (Score:3, Informative)

          by JDevers ( 83155 )
          We've got this crazy new tech called thermonuclear weaponry...it uses the wacked out idea of starting a small and mundane fission explosion which then triggers a much larger fusion explosion.

          Damned, no one is asking you to read Physics Today, but at least pay attention to the inventions from the 50s...
    • So you're saying I should bet my house on it?
      Hmmm a post from a stranger on /. is good enough for me, early retirement here I come.

    • Re:Nuclear fusion? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chairboy ( 88841 )
      No, you can control and sustain nuclear fusion in a Farnsworth Fusor [wikipedia.org]. The real problem is generating more power from the reaction then you invest into it. This is a threshold that various labs have been using exotic technology to approach (like Tokamak reactors).
    • Hmm, I was always told that H bombs were uncontrolled nuclear fusion reactions, but maybe I was lied to.
    • Discussions of current nuclear fusion are pointless. TFA clearly says "The bookie reckons the odds of a fusion power station turning on by 2010 are 100-1."

      Therefore, it isn't just fusion, or controlled fusion, it's a fusion power station turning on.

      • Re:Nuclear fusion? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lars T. ( 470328 )
        The bookie is nuts. It's pretty certain that nobody would even get a permission to build a fusion power station, let alone build one in the next 6 years. Heck, solid plans for a plant are unlikely in that timeframe.
  • I'll bet whichever way Stephen hawking goes. Even if he hasn't been so good on his past bets.
  • I'm putting a few bucks on Longhorn having no security issues in the first month after its release. Unfortunately, the odds are 10000000000000000000000:1.

  • article crunched (Score:5, Informative)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#10082510) Homepage
    where do I bet?

    As the article is already crunched, is this the same British firm who was allowing you to vote about life on Mars? [msn.com]
    • Yeah, it's the same guys--LADBROKES. They don't have anything on the website yet... but the article states it's the same guys.

      For two weeks, British-based bookmaker Ladbrokes is opening a book on five separate discoveries: life on Titan, gravitational waves, the Higgs boson, cosmic ray origins and nuclear fusion.

  • Doh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hassman ( 320786 )
    This always happens on the stories I was going to actually read.

    I wonder how the calculate the odds?

    • Re:Doh (Score:2, Informative)

      by nelsonal ( 549144 )
      Typically betters to the hard work, the bookie, just sets his odds so that an equal amount is bet both for and against the uncertainty. He generally gets a cut of the pot, and that's where the money comes from. If you were to make a particularly large bet, the odds would move against you to add money to the other side of the bet. If there is a ceiling on the maximum odds the best bet is likely that there is no life on Titan, although the no Nessie bet (66:1) by 2010 appears to be another good one (too mu

    • Re:Doh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 )
      I wonder how the calculate the odds?
      Oh I dunno, maybe they just make them up since they don't get a lot of takers when they state the real scientific odds: "A Snowball's Chance In Hell"

  • Easy Money... (Score:5, Funny)

    by still_sick ( 585332 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#10082513)
    Stalk Steven Hawking, bet what he bets.


    ... Or just knock him down and take his winnings. Either way, Bling-Bling!

  • Correct Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChrisTower ( 122297 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:19PM (#10082516) Homepage
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 96331 [newscientist.com]

  • Hey, great! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frennzy ( 730093 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:19PM (#10082518) Homepage
    So I can give them my money, and not worry about actually losing it until 2010! :D

    Honestly, I do think it'll give some insight into which projects get the most 'play' for the average person. But I also see problems...what if 'big bossman scientist' lays out $1000 on cold fusion, and then steers his entire staff and budget into it, with no hope of success? Wasted time and years? Or just the kick in the ass they might need to actually make some progress?

    • Re:Hey, great! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aerion ( 705544 )
      So I can give them my money, and not worry about actually losing it until 2010! :D

      Well, you'll lose it right away. You'll have to wait until 2010 before abandoning all hope of getting it back.

  • Odds the bookie will skip the country... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MaineCoon ( 12585 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:20PM (#10082532) Homepage
    ...and go to the bahamas by 2006:

    1:1.

  • One more odds. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chmarr ( 18662 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:20PM (#10082536)
    He forgot the most important one:

    Odds on the bookie being contactable in 6 years to pay out on all the bets he lost: 1,000,000:1
    • Odds on the bookie being contactable in 6 years to pay out on all the bets he lost: 1,000,000:1

      Hmm.. that'd be a 1/500 chance for each Ladbrokes [ladbrokes.com] 2000 betting shops in the UK then..

  • Too late! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Fortran IV ( 737299 )
    I'll take those 50:1 odds on transparent aluminum! Oh, wait, that was Monday. Darn.

  • Life on Titan? (Score:5, Informative)

    by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:21PM (#10082542) Homepage
    Find out by 2010? That's a loser of a bet. Unless Huygens crashes into a Titanian Giraffe, we won't know anything definitive by 2010. It took Cassini 7 years to get there, and 2010 is only 6 years away...
    • Find out by 2010? That's a loser of a bet. Unless Huygens crashes into a Titanian Giraffe, we won't know anything definitive by 2010.

      What if it's a very large giraffe that has an equally large flashlight and happens to be shining it in our direction? Then we'd know with earth-bound intruments...

  • About that fusion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GlassUser ( 190787 ) <[ten.resussalg] [ta] [todhsals]> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:21PM (#10082548) Homepage Journal
    Um, can't we make a sustained nuclear fusion reaction right now? I thought the only problem was setting it up in a way that it made more energy than it took to contain and cool.

    This, of course, completely disregards the simple fact that there are zillions of stars that are doing it right now.
  • Even high-school freshmen [deseretnews.com] can build a fusion reactor.

    I sure hope that bookie specified over-parity fusion, or I am going to make some easy money.

  • Odds of someone who places one of these bets.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:24PM (#10082578)
    getting laid before 2010?

    Is there a mathematical term for "when pigs fly?"

  • Seems risky for the bookie... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChiralSoftware ( 743411 ) <info@chiralsoftware.net> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:24PM (#10082580) Homepage
    All bookies are at risk from "wise guys" who basically have insider knowledge of the bet in question. Betting on science makes this risk extreme. If I were an exobiologist at NASA and we found good evidence of life on Titan, the lag to publishing or even announcing it would be days, weeks or even months. Plenty of time to put down a $10k bet and then try to collect $100m after the announcement.

    The stock markets are obviously subject to the same risk of illegal insider trading, but they are somewhat protected by stringent rules and enforcement (cf. Martha). An inside trader is basically equivalent to a wise guy, except that being an inside trader is illegal but being a wise guy isn't.

    Even if their betting contract says "NASA employees and their families may not participate in the Titan bet" or whatever, scientific information (unlike business information) is generally not under any kind of non-disclosure, so Joe Astrobiologist at NASA can freely tell his buddies about the squirmy things they dug up in the ice and his buddy can freely log on and bet wildly if he wants to.

    • Doesn't the article say they are only accepting bets for two weeks? In which case the NASA wise guys need to know now....
      • Still, scientists working in these fields may have a very good idea of the results, months before announcements or publications. Just doing the experiments and getting the data is only a small part of the process of publishing. It takes months to write the paper, format everything, submit it to journals, have it peer reviewed, edit, resubmit, etc. All those things contribute to the accuracy of the finished thing, but the results are usually pretty obvious long before. And on the fusion question... let's

  • The Higgs boson (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gil-galad55 ( 707960 )
    wouldn't be a bad bet... I wasn't able to RTFA, but with the LHC going online at CERN within the next 5 years, I imagine the Higgs will be found within the decade, and that's pretty conservative. Most particle physicists are confident the Higgs exists, if only because its inconvenient failure to exist would knock most current unified theories into a cocked hat. Depending on the timeframe, 6:1 odds sounds like some fast cash!

  • Who sets the odds? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PaulBu ( 473180 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:34PM (#10082666) Homepage
    I've got an impression from reading the article that the bookie company itself will be setting odds (and, thus, Bookies' odds are not straightforward probabilities. They also take into account how much the company can afford to lose in case they have to pay out.).

    I always though that the "proper" way to do this is to make people to bet for/against the event, odds are calculated as the ratio of $$ in those two pots. Then bookie loses nothing (and always gets his fee from both winners and losers).

    Are they saying that their odds are fixed numbers and To work out the odds on the physics experiments, Lush consulted physicists and astronomers.?

    Paul B.

    • Re:Who sets the odds? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:01PM (#10082865)
      There are two ways of betting. The "proper", fixed odds way, and pool betting (sometimes known as tote or pari-mutuel).

      Proper, english betting markets are formed by a bookmaker evaluating the probabilities of a selection winning an event. He will then write, say, 6/1 on a big blackboard. If lots of customers think this is a good price, they will all stick lots of money on it. "Oh, poo-pants", thinks the bookie, and cuts the price to 11/2, then 5/1. The customers that have already placed bets have 6/1, but future customers will get 5/1. Under this system, a bookie can, and frequently does, lose thousands on individual events.

      The second way, which I believe is frequently used in the US (in the UK, pool betting is run as the Tote by the government under a monopoly), is pool betting. Say there are two selections, A and B. If £1000 gets staked on A and £100 on B, then A will have odds of 9/1 (or 10.00 if you're american) and B will have odds of 1/10 (or 1.1). In this method the bookie will never lose money, but isn't actually making any books!

      Anti-flame barrier - I know I've over simplified, but I've tried to be concise.

  • Odds you get any money back (Score:3, Funny)

    by pyro101 ( 564166 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:36PM (#10082685) Homepage
    1,000,000,000,000:1
    Now your sure this isn't another Niger scam?

  • If you're interested in prognostication, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:36PM (#10082688)
    Why don't you go to tradesports.net? They have been doing this for a long time and seem to offer "services" covering the political and occasionally scientific as well.

    This just seems like a total one-off scam. Tradesports seems to be a legitimate market (in Ireland, where it is located) with quite a few happy users and some scientific research on its accuracy.

    However, as I'm an AC, the chances of being heard are 25000:1...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How about Pseudo-science odds? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @05:41PM (#10082720)
    Scientology: Must make minimum bet of $100K to see odds.
    Greys: You knew the odds before we wiped your memory.
    ESP: You already know the odds.
    The Rapture: 666-1
    Creationism: See Blind Watchmaker's Odds Book
  • Well... the old argument again. I can hear experts telling us that "gambling is for weak minded fools with no thought of odds..." But what about this... you think your average Jack or Joe (depending on demographics) is going to place a bet on this??? I think not! The only people that will bet on this are going to be people like us... slashdotter nerds. I bet you 1:1 odds that we can beat the system. SLASHDOTTERS!!! UNITE!!! Oh yeah... by the way... someone help me place a $500 dollar bet on nuclear fusion (
  • Reminds me of The Long Bets [longbets.org]

  • Titan bet not just on life (Score:5, Informative)

    by loqi ( 754476 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @06:21PM (#10083013)
    I thought the Titan bet was a great deal until I RTFA and found out it's intelligent life on Titan. I think I'll pass.

  • Mindless link propagation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gengee ( 124713 ) <gengis@hawaii.rr.com> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @09:15PM (#10084258)
    TradeSports.com [tradesports.com] allows anyone to trade futures contracts on all manner of assertions, including assertions on the coming U.S. presidential election.

    Checkout this site [geekmedia.org], which displays an electoral vote projection and map based on the state-by-state contracts for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to the TradeSports.com/InTrade market, the U.S. presidential election is tight, with Kerry projected to win 262 EVs to Bush's 242. 32 EVs are too close to call.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close