Lost first game – can I still make my mother proud?

I am one of the greatest finger wrestlers of my generation. Only 0.1% of all players are better.

When I play against someone who's worse than me, I win 99% of the time. Against someone who's better than me, I always lose.

It's the first round of a tournament. We're playing best of three games (i.e. two wins needed). I hate to say it, but I have just lost the first game! What are my chances of still making it to the second round?

Assuming that the players who are better than me always beat the players who are worse than me, what are my chances of making it to the third round?

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

8

This appears more like a math problem to me.
– Ahmed Abdelhameed
Dec 19 at 9:19

1

Or not... since it was already answered...
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:11

1

@AhmedAbdelhameed It is a math problem, but it's one that has a surprising paradox at its heart. I think that makes it an interesting puzzle. A puzzle that can be solved using straightforward math isn't automatically not a puzzle.
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 14:28

1

Are all players entered into this tournament? If not then the "only 0.1% of all players are better" is a useless statistic.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:12

1

@jafe - I don't understand your comment. For a fuller explanation of my comment, please see my longer comment under Kruga's answer.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:41

|
show 3 more comments

I am one of the greatest finger wrestlers of my generation. Only 0.1% of all players are better.

When I play against someone who's worse than me, I win 99% of the time. Against someone who's better than me, I always lose.

It's the first round of a tournament. We're playing best of three games (i.e. two wins needed). I hate to say it, but I have just lost the first game! What are my chances of still making it to the second round?

Assuming that the players who are better than me always beat the players who are worse than me, what are my chances of making it to the third round?

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

8

This appears more like a math problem to me.
– Ahmed Abdelhameed
Dec 19 at 9:19

1

Or not... since it was already answered...
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:11

1

@AhmedAbdelhameed It is a math problem, but it's one that has a surprising paradox at its heart. I think that makes it an interesting puzzle. A puzzle that can be solved using straightforward math isn't automatically not a puzzle.
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 14:28

1

Are all players entered into this tournament? If not then the "only 0.1% of all players are better" is a useless statistic.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:12

1

@jafe - I don't understand your comment. For a fuller explanation of my comment, please see my longer comment under Kruga's answer.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:41

|
show 3 more comments

I am one of the greatest finger wrestlers of my generation. Only 0.1% of all players are better.

When I play against someone who's worse than me, I win 99% of the time. Against someone who's better than me, I always lose.

It's the first round of a tournament. We're playing best of three games (i.e. two wins needed). I hate to say it, but I have just lost the first game! What are my chances of still making it to the second round?

Assuming that the players who are better than me always beat the players who are worse than me, what are my chances of making it to the third round?

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

I am one of the greatest finger wrestlers of my generation. Only 0.1% of all players are better.

When I play against someone who's worse than me, I win 99% of the time. Against someone who's better than me, I always lose.

It's the first round of a tournament. We're playing best of three games (i.e. two wins needed). I hate to say it, but I have just lost the first game! What are my chances of still making it to the second round?

Assuming that the players who are better than me always beat the players who are worse than me, what are my chances of making it to the third round?

mathematics probability

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

asked Dec 19 at 8:51

jafe

16.3k142160

8

This appears more like a math problem to me.
– Ahmed Abdelhameed
Dec 19 at 9:19

1

Or not... since it was already answered...
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:11

1

@AhmedAbdelhameed It is a math problem, but it's one that has a surprising paradox at its heart. I think that makes it an interesting puzzle. A puzzle that can be solved using straightforward math isn't automatically not a puzzle.
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 14:28

1

Are all players entered into this tournament? If not then the "only 0.1% of all players are better" is a useless statistic.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:12

1

@jafe - I don't understand your comment. For a fuller explanation of my comment, please see my longer comment under Kruga's answer.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:41

|
show 3 more comments

8

This appears more like a math problem to me.
– Ahmed Abdelhameed
Dec 19 at 9:19

1

Or not... since it was already answered...
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:11

1

@AhmedAbdelhameed It is a math problem, but it's one that has a surprising paradox at its heart. I think that makes it an interesting puzzle. A puzzle that can be solved using straightforward math isn't automatically not a puzzle.
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 14:28

1

Are all players entered into this tournament? If not then the "only 0.1% of all players are better" is a useless statistic.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:12

1

@jafe - I don't understand your comment. For a fuller explanation of my comment, please see my longer comment under Kruga's answer.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:41

This appears more like a math problem to me.
– Ahmed Abdelhameed
Dec 19 at 9:19

Or not... since it was already answered...
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:11

@AhmedAbdelhameed It is a math problem, but it's one that has a surprising paradox at its heart. I think that makes it an interesting puzzle. A puzzle that can be solved using straightforward math isn't automatically not a puzzle.
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 14:28

Are all players entered into this tournament? If not then the "only 0.1% of all players are better" is a useless statistic.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:12

@jafe - I don't understand your comment. For a fuller explanation of my comment, please see my longer comment under Kruga's answer.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:41

|
show 3 more comments

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

If you play 100.000 times versus random players, how many of them would be better/worse than you, and how many would you win/lose? We can put this in a grid.
     Worse   Better

Win  98901        0

Lose   999      100
Since you lost you first match there is a $999/1099$ chance that the your opponent is worse than you, and $100/1099$ chance that your opponent is better.

If your opponent is better, your chance of winning the series is 0. If your opponent is worse, your chance of winning is $0.99*0.99=0.9801$

You total chance of winning is then $0.9801*999/1099 + 0*100/1099 = 9791199/10990000 = 89.1%$

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

1

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

5

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

3

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

3

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\$","\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f77619%2flost-first-game-can-i-still-make-my-mother-proud%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

If you play 100.000 times versus random players, how many of them would be better/worse than you, and how many would you win/lose? We can put this in a grid.
     Worse   Better

Win  98901        0

Lose   999      100
Since you lost you first match there is a $999/1099$ chance that the your opponent is worse than you, and $100/1099$ chance that your opponent is better.

If your opponent is better, your chance of winning the series is 0. If your opponent is worse, your chance of winning is $0.99*0.99=0.9801$

You total chance of winning is then $0.9801*999/1099 + 0*100/1099 = 9791199/10990000 = 89.1%$

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

1

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

5

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

3

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

3

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

add a comment |

If you play 100.000 times versus random players, how many of them would be better/worse than you, and how many would you win/lose? We can put this in a grid.
     Worse   Better

Win  98901        0

Lose   999      100
Since you lost you first match there is a $999/1099$ chance that the your opponent is worse than you, and $100/1099$ chance that your opponent is better.

If your opponent is better, your chance of winning the series is 0. If your opponent is worse, your chance of winning is $0.99*0.99=0.9801$

You total chance of winning is then $0.9801*999/1099 + 0*100/1099 = 9791199/10990000 = 89.1%$

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

1

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

5

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

3

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

3

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

add a comment |

If you play 100.000 times versus random players, how many of them would be better/worse than you, and how many would you win/lose? We can put this in a grid.
     Worse   Better

Win  98901        0

Lose   999      100
Since you lost you first match there is a $999/1099$ chance that the your opponent is worse than you, and $100/1099$ chance that your opponent is better.

If your opponent is better, your chance of winning the series is 0. If your opponent is worse, your chance of winning is $0.99*0.99=0.9801$

You total chance of winning is then $0.9801*999/1099 + 0*100/1099 = 9791199/10990000 = 89.1%$

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

If you play 100.000 times versus random players, how many of them would be better/worse than you, and how many would you win/lose? We can put this in a grid.
     Worse   Better

Win  98901        0

Lose   999      100
Since you lost you first match there is a $999/1099$ chance that the your opponent is worse than you, and $100/1099$ chance that your opponent is better.

If your opponent is better, your chance of winning the series is 0. If your opponent is worse, your chance of winning is $0.99*0.99=0.9801$

You total chance of winning is then $0.9801*999/1099 + 0*100/1099 = 9791199/10990000 = 89.1%$

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

answered Dec 19 at 9:30

Kruga

2,672926

1

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

5

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

3

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

3

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

add a comment |

1

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

5

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

3

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

3

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

Yep, this is correct! Nice work.
– jafe
Dec 19 at 11:19

This is known as the false positive paradox
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Dec 19 at 12:45

But what's the likelihood that the players entered into the tournament are evenly distributed across all skill ranges? Gary Kasparov doesn't play in tournaments at my local chess club, and a beginner at my local chess club doesn't play in the Chess World Cup. I suspect that any tournament the OP enters is likely to have a higher than average skill level among the entrants, hence his chances of winning are lower than you calculate.
– AndyT
Dec 19 at 16:11

@AndyT - in the cutthroat world of finger wrestling, you don't choose to play. You're conscripted. :-)
– Kevin
Dec 19 at 19:29

@AndyT You're right that that bit is an assumption, but in the absence of the OP explicitly providing that information, assuming it's random and uniformly distributed is the only sane assumption if you're trying to produce a number. But yea, OP probably should have stated we should assume that.
– Shufflepants
Dec 19 at 20:55

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.

Please pay close attention to the following guidance:

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Gfrktyl