Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.
Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.
I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.
But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player’s winnings.
You’re right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That’s a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.
Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.
I don’t know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren’t, but I don’t see how that works in their favor.
You’re saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to “double-or-nothing”? I was thinking they’d only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.
That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house’s favor.
Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.
If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning… but they’ll get 8 times their initial bet. So it’s technically a fair game, right?
I feel like he was working up to a punchline about haven mistaken a toy for an electric school bus, but for some reason failed to get there.
Also videos that weren’t intended for kids but superficially looked like they were got involuntarily flagged as such and had their comments removed.
A separate site would have been a much better solution.
Taiwan had the same concern. What they did is make it so that receipts also work as lottery tickets, to encourage people to ask for them and hold on to them.
Yeah. I mean I agree that focusing on change at the systemic level is more effective than changing individual habits, but what people don’t realize is that the systemic change we need is the kind that will force those individual changes.
Taxing or regulating the oil companies will help, but it will help by making energy more expensive so people are forced to make do with less.
What I usually love about musicals is the variety of songs and subject matters, and with the exception of the Klingon song, the songs all felt the same.
Forget Sandy Loam. I want to know more about this “silly clay.”
I’m surprised to hear that. When I was in China in the early 2010s I saw it played all the time.
Surely there’s a difference between an animated movie loosely inspired by a traditional story with original songs, character designs, and dialogue, and remaking that movie beat-for-beat with just a few scenes changed for pandering.
Everything about that was puzzling. They changed the story supposedly to be more culturally accurate, but what they came up with wasn’t culturally accurate at all. How did that happen?
Besides, when Chinese people want a culturally accurate Mulan, they watch one of the many Chinese-made adaptions of the story. The animated was appealing because it was a fresh take, a Disney musical that Chinese could relate to. The remake was just a huge miscalculation.
When you think about it, it’s pretty unreasonable to expect the entire population to become educated and engaged about everything involving running a modern society. Modern government is incredibly complicated. It’s no wonder that tribalism wins over nuance. Who has time for nuance when they’re worried about their jobs and families?
That’s why I’d like to see some form of sortition tried. Draft a jury to do nothing but learn about a single topic for a period of time. Make all of their contact with the outside world public record to ensure nothing shady is going on. Let representatives from all sides of the issue address them. Then let them make their decisions and go back to their normal lives. No campaign donors or political careers to worry about.
That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.
Sure, both sides are not the same. But the “good” side is still part of the system that allows the “bad” side to exist.
So by all means, vote for the party that will do less damage in the short term. But oppose FPTP voting at the same time.
The plummeting should take care of itself from that point. You might need assistance with the rotation though.