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?
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.