SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 7
Download to read offline
Rock, Paper, ScissorsA-E Strand(s): Probability and Statistics. Sample Courses: Middle School Course 1, Middle School
One-Year Advanced Course, Integrated 1, and Geometry.
Topic/Expectation
D.B.2 Discrete graphs
a. Construct and interpret decision trees.
PS.A.1 Simple probability
b. Compare probabilities of two or more events and recognize when certain events are
equally likely.
Other Topic/Expectation(s)
PS.A.2 Relative frequency and probability
d. Compare theoretical probabilities with the results of simple experiments (e.g., tossing
dice, flipping coins, spinning spinners).
Rationale
This task encourages students to use tree diagrams to determine the probabilities used to decide
if two versions of a popular student game are fair.
Instructional Task
Activity 1:
1. Work in groups of three to play 20 rounds of the original Rock, Paper, Scissors game. There
should be two players (A and B) and one recorder who records game wins in the table below.
Remember that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beats paper. For more
information on how to play the game, you may want to refer to
www.rinkworks.com/games/rps.shtml.
Player Tally
Total
Points
% Wins
A
B
2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, work as a group to calculate the percentage of wins
for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance
of winning a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 2
4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the
theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results
match your theoretical results?
5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a
closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not?
6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer.
Activity 2:
1. Continue to work in your groups. This time, however, all three group members will play 20
rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors according to these rules:
Player A gets one point if all signs are the same.
Player B gets one point if two signs are the same.
Player C gets one point if all of the signs are different.
Record your results in the table below.
Player Tally
Total
Points
% Wins
A
B
C
2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, calculate the percentage of wins for each player.
Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning this
version of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the
theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results
match your theoretical results?
5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a
closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not?
6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer.
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 3
Discussion/Further Questions/Extensions
Activity 2 is an example of an unfair game because the probabilities that each player will earn a
point for each round of the game are not equal. Ask students how the game’s point system could
be changed to make this a fair game. One possible way to do this would be to assign varying
point values for each player depending on the probabilities calculated from the tree diagram. For
instance, students may choose to award Player A 6 points for each win, Player B 1 point, and
Player C 3 points. Ask students to make a mathematically convincing argument explaining why
their new game is fair.
Sample Solution
Activity 1:
1. Work in groups of three to play 20 rounds of the original Rock, Paper, Scissors game. There
should be two players (A and B) and one recorder who records game wins in the table below.
Answers will vary depending on each group’s results.
2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, work as a group to calculate the percentage of wins
for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance
of winning a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Answers will vary depending on each group’s results.
3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 4
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 5
4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the
theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results
match your theoretical results?
Theoretical Probabilities: The tree diagram shows that there are 9 possible outcomes; with 3
ways for Player A to win, 3 ways for Player B to win, and 3 ways to tie, resulting in the
following probabilities:
P(A wins) =
3
9
=
1
3
= .3 = 33
1
3
%
P(B wins) =
3
9
=
1
3
= .3 = 33
1
3
%
P(A and B tie) =
3
9
=
1
3
= .3 = 33
1
3
%
Student comparisons between the theoretical and experimental probabilities will vary.
5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a
closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not?
Answers will vary. Students might note or hypothesize that increasing the number of trials
(rounds of the game) will result in the experimental probability moving increasingly toward
the theoretical probability.
6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer.
It is a fair game since each player has an equal chance of winning, losing, or tying.
Activity 2:
1. Continue to work in your groups. This time, however, all three group members will play 20
rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors according to these rules:
Player A gets one point if all signs are the same.
Player B gets one point if two signs are the same.
Player C gets one point if all of the signs are different.
Record your results in the table below.
Answers will vary depending on each group’s results.
2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, calculate the percentage of wins for each player.
Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning this
version of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Answers will vary depending on each group’s results.
3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 6
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Charles A. Dana Center 7
4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the
theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results
match your theoretical results?
From the tree diagram, there are 27 possible outcomes.
Player A wins if all 3 signs are the same (that is, all rocks, all scissors, or all paper), so A’s
chances of winning are
3
27
=
1
9
= .1 = 11
1
9
%.
Player B wins if 2 are the same; B’s chances of winning are
18
27
=
2
3
= .6 = 66
2
3
%.
Player C wins if all are different; C’s chances of winning are
6
27
=
2
9
= .2 = 22
2
9
%.
Student comparisons of the theoretical and experimental probabilities will vary.
5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a
closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not?
Answers will vary. Students might note or hypothesize that increasing the number of trials
(rounds of the game) will result in the experimental probability moving increasingly toward
the theoretical probability.
6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer.
This is not a fair game. Player B has a greater advantage since there are more chances of
getting two signs that are the same.

More Related Content

What's hot

Green resources 10_03
Green resources 10_03Green resources 10_03
Green resources 10_03mcvannj
 
5.1 puzzle time
5.1 puzzle time5.1 puzzle time
5.1 puzzle timemcvannj
 
Math magic presentation
Math magic presentationMath magic presentation
Math magic presentationjasmi jaafar
 
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)Valbona Imeraj
 
Lattice Multiplication
Lattice MultiplicationLattice Multiplication
Lattice MultiplicationLilianPatrick
 
Lattice multiplication
Lattice multiplicationLattice multiplication
Lattice multiplicationbrizett45
 
1.4 puzzle time
1.4 puzzle time1.4 puzzle time
1.4 puzzle timemcvannj
 
relating multiplication and division
relating multiplication and divisionrelating multiplication and division
relating multiplication and divisionAlex Blank
 
Combined topic 4
Combined topic 4Combined topic 4
Combined topic 4David Ramos
 
Pssa math prep
Pssa math prepPssa math prep
Pssa math prepvancem
 
1.3 puzzle time
1.3 puzzle time1.3 puzzle time
1.3 puzzle timemcvannj
 
strategic intervention materials in math 6
strategic intervention materials in math 6strategic intervention materials in math 6
strategic intervention materials in math 6Ivy Rose Pastor
 

What's hot (19)

2.2
2.22.2
2.2
 
Green resources 10_03
Green resources 10_03Green resources 10_03
Green resources 10_03
 
2.3
2.32.3
2.3
 
5.1 puzzle time
5.1 puzzle time5.1 puzzle time
5.1 puzzle time
 
Math magic presentation
Math magic presentationMath magic presentation
Math magic presentation
 
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)
Testi i matematikes (Parashkollori)
 
Lattice Multiplication
Lattice MultiplicationLattice Multiplication
Lattice Multiplication
 
The Division Pack
The Division PackThe Division Pack
The Division Pack
 
Math Trivia
Math TriviaMath Trivia
Math Trivia
 
Math class 4 division-_ppt
Math class 4 division-_pptMath class 4 division-_ppt
Math class 4 division-_ppt
 
Lattice multiplication
Lattice multiplicationLattice multiplication
Lattice multiplication
 
1.4 puzzle time
1.4 puzzle time1.4 puzzle time
1.4 puzzle time
 
Sudoku solve rmain
Sudoku solve rmainSudoku solve rmain
Sudoku solve rmain
 
relating multiplication and division
relating multiplication and divisionrelating multiplication and division
relating multiplication and division
 
Combined topic 4
Combined topic 4Combined topic 4
Combined topic 4
 
Pssa math prep
Pssa math prepPssa math prep
Pssa math prep
 
1.3 puzzle time
1.3 puzzle time1.3 puzzle time
1.3 puzzle time
 
strategic intervention materials in math 6
strategic intervention materials in math 6strategic intervention materials in math 6
strategic intervention materials in math 6
 
Maths T5 W5
Maths T5 W5Maths T5 W5
Maths T5 W5
 

Viewers also liked

Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vagueness
Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vaguenessTimo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vagueness
Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vaguenessTimo Honkela
 
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By Possiblers
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By PossiblersEighteen ways you must think about failure By Possiblers
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By PossiblersPOSSIBLERS
 
Diane_C_halsey update-2
Diane_C_halsey update-2Diane_C_halsey update-2
Diane_C_halsey update-2Diane Halsey
 
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificate
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificateSISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificate
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificateHannah Buckendorf
 
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open Networks
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open NetworksPASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open Networks
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open NetworksVanessa Camilleri
 
Hojita evangelio domingo iii de pascua c bn
Hojita evangelio domingo  iii de pascua  c  bnHojita evangelio domingo  iii de pascua  c  bn
Hojita evangelio domingo iii de pascua c bnNelson Gómez
 
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologi
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologiCara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologi
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologiKuchee
 
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurship
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurshipGender gaps and female entrepreneurship
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurshipGRAPE
 
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...Timo Honkela
 
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCA
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCAFEDERICO GARCÍA LORCA
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCAEva Puertes
 
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnych
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnychPolityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnych
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnychGRAPE
 
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnym
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnymRedystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnym
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnymGRAPE
 
Female access to the labor market and wages over transition
Female access to the labor market and wages over transitionFemale access to the labor market and wages over transition
Female access to the labor market and wages over transitionGRAPE
 
Political (In)Stability of Pension System Reforms
Political (In)Stability of Pension System ReformsPolitical (In)Stability of Pension System Reforms
Political (In)Stability of Pension System ReformsGRAPE
 
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de los
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de losQue caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de los
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de losALEXFERNEYORTIZ
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vagueness
Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vaguenessTimo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vagueness
Timo Honkela: A short introduction to Modeling ambiguity and vagueness
 
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By Possiblers
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By PossiblersEighteen ways you must think about failure By Possiblers
Eighteen ways you must think about failure By Possiblers
 
Diane_C_halsey update-2
Diane_C_halsey update-2Diane_C_halsey update-2
Diane_C_halsey update-2
 
bqpenthouse
bqpenthousebqpenthouse
bqpenthouse
 
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificate
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificateSISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificate
SISCR2016_CR1601_Hannah-Buckendorf_certificate
 
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open Networks
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open NetworksPASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open Networks
PASCAL2015 - Citizen Online Open Networks
 
SuryaBPO.docx
SuryaBPO.docxSuryaBPO.docx
SuryaBPO.docx
 
Fuentes de información
Fuentes de informaciónFuentes de información
Fuentes de información
 
Hojita evangelio domingo iii de pascua c bn
Hojita evangelio domingo  iii de pascua  c  bnHojita evangelio domingo  iii de pascua  c  bn
Hojita evangelio domingo iii de pascua c bn
 
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologi
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologiCara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologi
Cara efektif belajar anatomi fisiologi
 
Cryptography
CryptographyCryptography
Cryptography
 
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurship
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurshipGender gaps and female entrepreneurship
Gender gaps and female entrepreneurship
 
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...
Timo Honkela: Linking Cognitive Systems, Digital Humanities and Brain Cancer ...
 
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCA
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCAFEDERICO GARCÍA LORCA
FEDERICO GARCÍA LORCA
 
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnych
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnychPolityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnych
Polityczna (nie)stabilność reform systemów emerytalnych
 
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnym
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnymRedystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnym
Redystrybucja wewnatrzpokoleniowa w systemie emerytalnym
 
Female access to the labor market and wages over transition
Female access to the labor market and wages over transitionFemale access to the labor market and wages over transition
Female access to the labor market and wages over transition
 
Political (In)Stability of Pension System Reforms
Political (In)Stability of Pension System ReformsPolitical (In)Stability of Pension System Reforms
Political (In)Stability of Pension System Reforms
 
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de los
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de losQue caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de los
Que caracteristicas trae la segunda generacion de los
 
2
22
2
 

Similar to 22 rockpaper

Similar to 22 rockpaper (20)

marble game.pdf
marble game.pdfmarble game.pdf
marble game.pdf
 
PPT8.ppt
PPT8.pptPPT8.ppt
PPT8.ppt
 
9.2 Tree Diagram
9.2 Tree Diagram9.2 Tree Diagram
9.2 Tree Diagram
 
Pure ch20
Pure ch20Pure ch20
Pure ch20
 
Equations
EquationsEquations
Equations
 
Maths_GameSingleSlide.ppt
Maths_GameSingleSlide.pptMaths_GameSingleSlide.ppt
Maths_GameSingleSlide.ppt
 
Projek 2
Projek 2Projek 2
Projek 2
 
Math 7° periodo 4 guía 2
Math 7° periodo 4 guía 2Math 7° periodo 4 guía 2
Math 7° periodo 4 guía 2
 
Unit 12: Probability
Unit 12: ProbabilityUnit 12: Probability
Unit 12: Probability
 
G4ww1 4
G4ww1 4G4ww1 4
G4ww1 4
 
(7) Lesson 9.3
(7) Lesson 9.3(7) Lesson 9.3
(7) Lesson 9.3
 
Chapter 9 Test Review
Chapter 9 Test ReviewChapter 9 Test Review
Chapter 9 Test Review
 
Lab23 chisquare2007
Lab23 chisquare2007Lab23 chisquare2007
Lab23 chisquare2007
 
Prob2definitions
Prob2definitionsProb2definitions
Prob2definitions
 
(7) Lesson 9.4
(7) Lesson 9.4(7) Lesson 9.4
(7) Lesson 9.4
 
Statistical Assignment Help
Statistical Assignment HelpStatistical Assignment Help
Statistical Assignment Help
 
SAT-PAPER
SAT-PAPER SAT-PAPER
SAT-PAPER
 
(8) Lesson 3.3
(8) Lesson 3.3(8) Lesson 3.3
(8) Lesson 3.3
 
7.4 la1 teachers
7.4 la1 teachers7.4 la1 teachers
7.4 la1 teachers
 
8.3 la
8.3 la8.3 la
8.3 la
 

22 rockpaper

  • 1. Rock, Paper, ScissorsA-E Strand(s): Probability and Statistics. Sample Courses: Middle School Course 1, Middle School One-Year Advanced Course, Integrated 1, and Geometry. Topic/Expectation D.B.2 Discrete graphs a. Construct and interpret decision trees. PS.A.1 Simple probability b. Compare probabilities of two or more events and recognize when certain events are equally likely. Other Topic/Expectation(s) PS.A.2 Relative frequency and probability d. Compare theoretical probabilities with the results of simple experiments (e.g., tossing dice, flipping coins, spinning spinners). Rationale This task encourages students to use tree diagrams to determine the probabilities used to decide if two versions of a popular student game are fair. Instructional Task Activity 1: 1. Work in groups of three to play 20 rounds of the original Rock, Paper, Scissors game. There should be two players (A and B) and one recorder who records game wins in the table below. Remember that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beats paper. For more information on how to play the game, you may want to refer to www.rinkworks.com/games/rps.shtml. Player Tally Total Points % Wins A B 2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, work as a group to calculate the percentage of wins for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. 3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
  • 2. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 2 4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results match your theoretical results? 5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not? 6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer. Activity 2: 1. Continue to work in your groups. This time, however, all three group members will play 20 rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors according to these rules: Player A gets one point if all signs are the same. Player B gets one point if two signs are the same. Player C gets one point if all of the signs are different. Record your results in the table below. Player Tally Total Points % Wins A B C 2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, calculate the percentage of wins for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning this version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. 3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game. 4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results match your theoretical results? 5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not? 6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer.
  • 3. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 3 Discussion/Further Questions/Extensions Activity 2 is an example of an unfair game because the probabilities that each player will earn a point for each round of the game are not equal. Ask students how the game’s point system could be changed to make this a fair game. One possible way to do this would be to assign varying point values for each player depending on the probabilities calculated from the tree diagram. For instance, students may choose to award Player A 6 points for each win, Player B 1 point, and Player C 3 points. Ask students to make a mathematically convincing argument explaining why their new game is fair. Sample Solution Activity 1: 1. Work in groups of three to play 20 rounds of the original Rock, Paper, Scissors game. There should be two players (A and B) and one recorder who records game wins in the table below. Answers will vary depending on each group’s results. 2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, work as a group to calculate the percentage of wins for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Answers will vary depending on each group’s results. 3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
  • 4. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 4
  • 5. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 5 4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results match your theoretical results? Theoretical Probabilities: The tree diagram shows that there are 9 possible outcomes; with 3 ways for Player A to win, 3 ways for Player B to win, and 3 ways to tie, resulting in the following probabilities: P(A wins) = 3 9 = 1 3 = .3 = 33 1 3 % P(B wins) = 3 9 = 1 3 = .3 = 33 1 3 % P(A and B tie) = 3 9 = 1 3 = .3 = 33 1 3 % Student comparisons between the theoretical and experimental probabilities will vary. 5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not? Answers will vary. Students might note or hypothesize that increasing the number of trials (rounds of the game) will result in the experimental probability moving increasingly toward the theoretical probability. 6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer. It is a fair game since each player has an equal chance of winning, losing, or tying. Activity 2: 1. Continue to work in your groups. This time, however, all three group members will play 20 rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors according to these rules: Player A gets one point if all signs are the same. Player B gets one point if two signs are the same. Player C gets one point if all of the signs are different. Record your results in the table below. Answers will vary depending on each group’s results. 2. After completing 20 rounds of the game, calculate the percentage of wins for each player. Use these results to discuss whether each player has an equally likely chance of winning this version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Answers will vary depending on each group’s results. 3. Draw a tree diagram showing every possible outcome for the game.
  • 6. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 6
  • 7. Rock, Paper, Scissors Charles A. Dana Center 7 4. Based on your tree diagram, write fractional, decimal, and percent values representing the theoretical probability each player has of winning the game. Do your experimental results match your theoretical results? From the tree diagram, there are 27 possible outcomes. Player A wins if all 3 signs are the same (that is, all rocks, all scissors, or all paper), so A’s chances of winning are 3 27 = 1 9 = .1 = 11 1 9 %. Player B wins if 2 are the same; B’s chances of winning are 18 27 = 2 3 = .6 = 66 2 3 %. Player C wins if all are different; C’s chances of winning are 6 27 = 2 9 = .2 = 22 2 9 %. Student comparisons of the theoretical and experimental probabilities will vary. 5. Take a class average of the experimental results. Are the averaged experimental results a closer match to the theoretical results? Why or why not? Answers will vary. Students might note or hypothesize that increasing the number of trials (rounds of the game) will result in the experimental probability moving increasingly toward the theoretical probability. 6. Based on all your results, is this a fair game? Justify your answer. This is not a fair game. Player B has a greater advantage since there are more chances of getting two signs that are the same.