OK, here is the puzzle……
During a high stakes poker competition preceded by a sit-down dinner, Dick, Tom, Harry and Fred played together. At the end of the evening, all four had more cash than when they arrived. In other words, none of them lost although they were playing for money. How could this be?
I have produced an ebook containing 101 of the previous Friday Puzzles! It is called PUZZLED and is available for the Kindle (UK here and USA here) and on the iBookstore (UK here in the USA here). You can try 101 of the puzzles for free here.
Advertisement
August 26, 2011 at 6:02 am |
Pretty sure I got it after a moment. We shall see….
August 26, 2011 at 6:04 am |
Crafty.
August 26, 2011 at 6:05 am |
That seemed like a straightforward one
August 26, 2011 at 6:07 am |
that was too easy
August 26, 2011 at 6:11 am |
unless this is a trick question I think the answer is a bit obvious
August 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
If what I think you’re thinking is what I’m thinking, it’s not even a puzzle. Thus I don’t think it’s what I’m thinking.
August 26, 2011 at 6:15 am |
Got an answer almost immediately. I’ll be interested to see if there’s a trick that I am missing.
August 26, 2011 at 6:16 am
Just thought of a different answer, which for some reason I suspect is closer to the “actual” answer. Both could be correct, though.
August 26, 2011 at 6:20 am |
Took a second read through, and I got it.
August 26, 2011 at 6:23 am |
Don’t get it…
August 26, 2011 at 8:51 am
Got three answers now. One of them is very much better than the others.
August 26, 2011 at 10:47 am
I found a fourth and a fifth answer.
I suppose it is the fifth answer. But if it is, I want you to make excuses for blaming 86% of the parents that they would not hand over their “rioting” child to the police. Because that is the same issue as this puzzle!
August 26, 2011 at 6:36 am |
Got one good answer straight away. Re-read it and got a second answer too.
August 26, 2011 at 6:48 am |
I appreciate it must be difficult to come up with original puzzles every week, but I suspect most of those of us who click on the link have been disappointed more often than we’re challenged recently.
August 26, 2011 at 6:52 am |
Got an obvious answer straight off. Then realised that a totally fantastical answer was equally valid and decided that if the answer doesn’t involve the dinner then it’s probably wrong.
August 26, 2011 at 7:02 am |
Can think of at least a few answers. Not sure if any happen to be the “right” answer, but I won’t feel bad if they’re not with this sort of puzzle.
August 26, 2011 at 7:04 am |
Um, was it something to do with the bank heist that happened the same evening? They were caught because forensics found traces of Fred’s salmon mousse.
I also have 3 other answers, the second of which I suspect is right.
August 26, 2011 at 7:22 am |
Seconds, for once.
August 26, 2011 at 7:23 am |
There was a really obvious solution which I saw right away but maybe there’s something I’m missing.
August 26, 2011 at 7:41 am |
There are so many possibilties and no way to eliminate them, so I’ve decided that they are all magic ghosts who can generate cash by winking
August 26, 2011 at 7:44 am |
Got this one. It’s music to my ears.
August 26, 2011 at 8:11 am
I think I ‘ve got it now, we’re singing from the same songsheet here.
August 26, 2011 at 7:44 am |
One very obvious answer occurs to me, but this is wide open to multiple explanations. I guess the “right” answer will be the one that makes the least number of assumptions.
August 26, 2011 at 8:20 am |
Think its a trick. Oh well. I hope I’m right
August 26, 2011 at 8:24 am |
Dead obvious. Easy ones like this are music to my ears.
August 26, 2011 at 8:52 am |
Some ideas came up. But none a solution to the puzzle (or too much out-of-box thinking). Maybe it’s that I’m not a native English speaker nor a player of poker.
August 26, 2011 at 10:06 am
More likely to be the former.
August 26, 2011 at 8:56 am |
This is too ambiguous to have a single correct solution.
August 26, 2011 at 9:01 am |
Thanks for giving it away, you three commenters. But there is another, albeit less elegant, solution.
August 26, 2011 at 9:05 am |
There’s an obvious answer, and then I looked at the comments and realised the actual answer…
August 26, 2011 at 9:10 am |
Obviously no satisfactory argument to this one then.
August 26, 2011 at 9:51 am |
Crumbs! ive think ive got. finally! after months of reading The Friday Puzzle – I’m starting to get the hang of this “thinking” lark.
August 26, 2011 at 10:13 am |
what’s a sit-down dinner? I’m sure this line I don’t get holds the hint to solve it…
August 26, 2011 at 11:16 am
A formal dinner, more or less.
August 26, 2011 at 10:22 am |
One answer instantly, another after rereading it.
August 26, 2011 at 10:29 am |
Hmm… I think I see what you did there. Or at least I think I think what you did there.
I have a few answers, but logically they are the same situation.
August 26, 2011 at 10:31 am |
I know the answer – simply because I heard it as a child and somehow remember it!
August 26, 2011 at 11:04 am |
Ah, after another read I realised the answer.
August 26, 2011 at 11:14 am |
A few answers twirling around my head. I agree with andyo and Alex.
August 26, 2011 at 11:32 am |
One must assume that no-one else has given then any money, that could lead to any number of answers.
August 26, 2011 at 11:55 am |
If this can be shortened to just the poker and reworded to say all of them gained more (cash or whatever) than they lost at poker, then I’m stumped. Otherwise I have many different answers which jumped out at me. The second (not involving the dinner) is nicest and I hope what Richard is thinking.
August 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
Way too many possibility
August 26, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
Once again Clever Dicks giving the answer away. Why is it that some people find it impossible to leave a comment without doing that?
August 26, 2011 at 12:54 pm
None of the comments I’ve seen give away what I suspect is the right answer. However, there are lots of red herrings being put up.
August 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm
OK, but I disagree. I was a little stumped, although I could think of a couple of possible solutions, but some of the comments above led me to what I’m certain is the right one. We shall see…
August 26, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
This seems so obvious that I wonder if I’m reading the puzzle correctly.
August 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
Got it in 2.39483926 seconds. I feel so smug
August 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm
How did you time yourself? With an atomic clock?
I don’t like this puzzle – it seems too vague.
Have a great bank holiday weekend everyone.
August 26, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
Sure the answers depend on which version of Poker they are playing?
August 26, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
Yep, I like my answer. You can’t take that away from me whatever you say on Monday.
August 26, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
As often happens, my answer will be right in my world. I’m also imagining that Harry and Fred are short for Harriet and Freda, for a bit of gender equality.
August 26, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
5 seconds
August 27, 2011 at 3:11 am |
The question doesn’t say that the four participants were the only ones who played poker. Are we to assume this?
August 27, 2011 at 11:41 am |
I think I’ve played with these guys
August 27, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
They all got so drunk that they see double the money=]
August 27, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
First I got annoyed because if we’re allowed to add premises, only the imagination limits the number of answers.
Then I read some pretty obvious hints in the comments and found the answer (yes, I went looking in the comments, sorry!).
August 28, 2011 at 6:07 am |
Took a few seconds to understand the question, then got the answer.
August 28, 2011 at 9:21 am |
A couple of obvious answers immediately present themselves.
August 29, 2011 at 3:34 am |
Only one elegant and clever solution, but the question fails to properly exclude the alternative boring solutions.
August 29, 2011 at 3:39 am |
Well, I see one clue that offers an answer. I guess I’ll find out on Monday if I was right or if it was just a red herring.
February 6, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
They were all Democrats and they were under Obamas spell to believe that there was plenty of money to go around, when in fact there was not.