Posted on 08/31/2011 9:40:05 PM PDT by Orange1998
FAIRBAULT, MN -- A Minnesota boy who made an incredible hockey shot during a charity event won't collect the $50,000 prize because his twin brother should have taken the shot.
The company that insured the event, Odds On Promotions, said Wednesday it would instead donate $20,000 to youth hockey in Minnesota in the boys' names.
Eleven-year-old Nate Smith hit the puck through a tiny hole 89 feet away during a charity hockey game in Faribault (FAYR'-boh) on Aug. 11. But it was Nate's identical twin, Nick, whose raffle ticket won the chance to take the shot.
The boys' father, Pat Smith, says Nick was outside and told his brother to try.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
If I were the other brother, I would sue the company for allowing an imposter to shoot his shot for him.
From the NY Daily News:
Nick's name was drawn in a fund-raising raffle for which the boys' dad had bought three tickets, but Nate took the shot since his brother had stepped outside.
True, but the Dad sounds like a stand up guy.
All we can do as parents is lead by example.
It’s easy to feel good about yourself and say “give the 50 thou to the 11 year old” when it’s not your money.
But consider: Sounds to me like the charity mis represented some of their raffle controls (probably innocently) to the insurance company - which would throw off the odds calculation and the premium calculation. The odds against one person winning a raffle and hitting the 89 foot shot are far larger than the odds of one person doing one and another person the other. The fact that it was his twin is immaterial.
And insurance is nothing if not a statistical odds risk management tool. Life insurance won’t pay for the death of a twin, and neither will this.
If they are identical twins ... they have identical DNA aka Clones of each other ... maybe their names got mixed up at the Hospital, or on the way home or they swapped lunch boxes in the 3rd grade...
If I was a Lawyer I’d only ask for half... /S
TT
So there was a name on the ticket then.
If that’s the case. I’ll agree with it. The raffles I’ve seen were by number and the person in possession of the winning number wins. You could hand the ticket to anyone you wanted to.
Thank you for the added information.
Apparantly the brothers were asked about it and told the truth?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Sounds that way BUT the situation wasn’t exactly the same.
Upon rereading the article I think they had entered a drawing or such as they mention coupon?
So not really sure if it was a drawing or luck of the draw, as my case was....And yes, prior to that I used to say these things were fixed etc, no one would ‘dare’ give me a shot because I would make it....well, guess I was wrong on both counts... <: <:
It isn’t obvious to me why it matters odds wise in terms of having to provide a payoff (with one exception described later). The odds of the first event don’t affect the odds of the second event. They are both essentially independent events that both have to be met in terms of having to pay the winnings. The only thing that would seem to matter is if you were to substitute the person in the second event with one of higher skill at shooting the puck. If the substitute and the first event winner are of equal skill the overall odds of the money being paid out are unchanged. The payoff odds are what matter, not the odds of the individuals who “win” each stage of the events.
Or in other words... If one person throws the dice twice the odds of hitting snake eyes is the same as two people throwing each die once for snake eyes. The odds are based on throwing the dice twice for a specific combined result not who throws them.
Why is that not correct?
If rules and laws are not followed, society will continue to disintegrate and total strangers will begin making holes in ones and impossible hockey shots. Soon dogs will ask for cat-transition surgery and Muslims will start eating BLTs.
Then chaos will prevail and any fool will think they can become President of the US.....Its frightening.
Another point...
Most raffles always have a winner. So the first stage is a 100% likelihood event that somebody will win.
Therefore the odds of a payout are essentially unaffected by the raffle - other than the varying skill factor of the participants and who wins if the second stage event odds are affected by skill. If skill wasn’t a factor, the odds of a payout are entirely based on the odds of winning the second event and not who wins the raffle.
“The Dad sounds like a stand up guy.
All we can do as parents is lead by example.”
BINGO! You win the prize. The kids were taught a great lesson about being honest, something that is sadly lacking in today’s society. Turns out the kids ARE WINNERS and the youth hockey program also came out a winner.
Cheap welching basterds!
It's probably important to learn both lessons from the same event. I know that's the way I was taught by my father to do what was right. He had only an incomplete 8th grade education, but he had a clear idea of the nature of moral agency and duty.
Do the right thing, even if you get screwed as a result. Life is hard. Do not betray yourself.
I guess you don’t believe in RULES.
DUMB PR move for the insurance company. If they lose just anhandful of customers they’ll lose way more than 30,000. I’m amazed how companies can have multimillion advertising budgets and then do something so unpopular to save a buck.
According to the article one kid won the raffle and another kid took the shot. If I were to win a raffle to take a shot of say a 30 foot hole in one and I had a pro golfer do it for me it, well?
A couple of inconsistencies in your analysis:
First, you talk about the chance of substituting someone of greater skill for the shot part of the event. The very threat of that is why the raffle ticket winner must be the one to take the shot. Just because these guys are twins does not mean they have equal skills. I have no idea whether they do or not. The fact is that the mathematical equation counted on the ticket drawer doing the shooting. Otherwise, whatever kid won the ticket raffle could simply give his or her shot to the best shot in town with the idea that they’ll split the prize.
The insurance analysis was not based on that, therefore the odds - and therefore the very heart of the insurability of this event - are based on the ticket holder taking his or her own shot. Period.
Next you then use the comparison of throwing dice. Not the same thing at all as a full court basketball shot or hockey shot or short par 3 hole in one type contest, etc.
Seems to me you don’t understand the difference in odds of one random event happening versus two consecutive random events in a particular order. The actuarial statisticians who calculate odds for these events - all of the ‘hole in one” type events - calculate this down to the nth degree so that small fund raising organizations can afford to insure these events.
True. Most tickets are payable to the bearer. That's why people who buy lottery tickets should sign them on the back in the space provided. I read an ugly story about that a long time ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.