# For \$10, \$1000, and a gun to your head.

#### karlboss

A friend who knows I'm into cycling asks me is Froome doping, I answer probably. He then asks, ok who is the top guy not doping. I start to look down the results.
So here is the question for you if you were asked to bet \$10 to pick the highest placed rider not doping who would you pick. You win the \$10 if yours is the highest placed rider and not doping. You owe nothing if someone else chosses a rider higher placed and not doping and your rider is not doping, you lose if your rider is doping.

Does it change if the value becomes \$1000?

Does it change if, as Vaughters used recently, someone puts a gun to your head?

i found my answers were simple for the gun to my head and \$10. Gun noone is clean. \$10 in this game, Mollema. Where I had real trouble was the \$1000 guess. Wout Poels?

#### spalco

The bet doesn't work out, you should have to pay the 10\$/1000\$ if another guy picks a higher placed clean rider.

#### karlboss

spalco said:
The bet doesn't work out, you should have to pay the 10\$/1000\$ if another guy picks a higher placed clean rider.
The idea is go as high as you can without tripping the doping line. If you don't pick a doper you don't lose. Semantics aside do you have some guesses?

#### Ferminal

Supposedly it should be the same for any value of an even bet, but I guess we all violate that one. But say for 1k I might be risk neutral so take anyone I'm >50% confident in, whereas someone else may be averse to the potential for high losses so may want to be >99% confident, thus our answers could be different even though we have the exact same level of confidence in every rider. Ergo, responses are influenced by both risk preference and our confidence in riders being clean.

Anyway,

\$10: Froome
\$1000: S. Dumoulin

With a gun the answer is nobody as there is no profit to be made for being correct (if you had to pick someone it would be the one you are most confident in, regardless of rank).

#### karlboss

Ferminal said:
Supposedly it should be the same for any value of an even bet, but I guess we all violate that one. But say for 1k I might be risk neutral so take anyone I'm >50% confident in, whereas someone else may be averse to the potential for high losses so may want to be >99% confident, thus our answers could be different even though we have the exact same level of confidence in every rider. Ergo, responses are influenced by both risk preference and our confidence in riders being clean.

Anyway,

\$10: Froome
\$1000: S. Dumoulin

With a gun the answer is nobody as there is no profit to be made for being correct (if you had to pick someone it would be the one you are most confident in, regardless of rank).
Good answer. The approach to risk and reward is important in answering this question.

#### spalco

Ferminal said:
Supposedly it should be the same for any value of an even bet, but I guess we all violate that one. But say for 1k I might be risk neutral so take anyone I'm >50% confident in, whereas someone else may be averse to the potential for high losses so may want to be >99% confident, thus our answers could be different even though we have the exact same level of confidence in every rider. Ergo, responses are influenced by both risk preference and our confidence in riders being clean.
But that's my point, if you don't lose anything by taking less risk, why choose Froome for instance? And also where would the winnings be coming from if people don't take a chance? There can only be so much money in the pot in the first place.

Anyway, in this scenario I would also put the 10\$ on Froome, and the 1000\$ probably on Talansky. (if the 2013 TdF is the standard of measurement)

#### blackcat

karlboss said:
A friend who knows I'm into cycling asks me is Froome doping, I answer probably. He then asks, ok who is the top guy not doping. I start to look down the results.
So here is the question for you if you were asked to bet \$10 to pick the highest placed rider not doping who would you pick. You win the \$10 if yours is the highest placed rider and not doping. You owe nothing if someone else chosses a rider higher placed and not doping and your rider is not doping, you lose if your rider is doping.

Does it change if the value becomes \$1000?

Does it change if, as Vaughters used recently, someone puts a gun to your head?

i found my answers were simple for the gun to my head and \$10. Gun noone is clean. \$10 in this game, Mollema. Where I had real trouble was the \$1000 guess. Wout Poels?
pretty incoherent thought experiment.

poor structure, gun is a penalty, dollars reward no risk, and highest place wins money.

so higher places than the gun = receive penalty

define doping? anything illegal in the past 8 years? I will go no one.

#### Parker

Froome for all of them.

Just playing the odds. His likelihood of being clean is about as good as any other top placed rider, but I am 100% guaranteed that no clean rider finished ahead of him.

#### del1962

Froome for first two, for a gun to my head, although I would be useless let me join a pro tour team and I choose myself.

#### Netserk

Parker said:
Froome for all of them.

Just playing the odds. His likelihood of being clean is about as good as any other top placed rider, but I am 100% guaranteed that no clean rider finished ahead of him.
Does.
Not.
Compute.

#### 42x16ss

I'd consider putting \$1000 on Cameron Meyer or maybe one of the domestiques like Yukiya Arashiro, Jeremy Roy, Ted King or Adam Hansen.

Maxime Monfort might be worth a \$10 punt.

Nobody for the gun

#### BigBoat

The TDF is generally not a race for clean guys, as dopers (even a little bit of testosterone or a new anabolic steroid) will out perform clean riders of equal talent. Alexandre GENIEZ to me looks consistent. Cunego to me is riding pretty clean compared to what he would have done when he first started.

Now if were talking the Tour of Alberta or the Joe Martin stage race then we can start talking clean riders and (MAYBE) clean winners.