HandwovenConsensus

joined 1 year ago
[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'm looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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?

 

The idea is that if the coin flip goes in the player's favor, they win double their bet. After winning, they can either collect their winnings, or risk them all on another coin flip to have a chance at doubling them. The initial bet is fixed at, let's say $1.

Mathematically, this seems like a fair game. The expected value of each individual round is zero for both house and player.

Intuitively, though, I can't shake the notion that the player will tend to keep flipping until they lose. In theory, it isn't the wrong decision to keep flipping since the expected value of the flip doesn't change, but it feels like it is.

Any insight?

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 5 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah, I can't speak to the behind-the-scenes drama, but I agree that Pierce was at his best in Season One, where he was a little bit grandiose and a little bit of a jerk but still had moments of wisdom and humanity. I always liked the talk he gave Jeff in the boating episode.

Turning him into a total buffoon villain from season 2 onwards was a change for the worse.

 

I just kind of wonder with how casually people express these thoughts. It's a little disturbing how normalized it is to entertain such notions, given how other types of fantasies are very stigmatized.

Like when discussing char.ai, acting out sexual or romantic fantasies is something a lot of people do, but it's considered embarrassing. While people freely discuss violent roleplays without any shame.

And then there's the cliche of fantasizing about killing one's boss or coworkers.

Are these really common thoughts for mentally sound people to have?

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Like the Klingon dish gagh?

[–] HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

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.

 

A lot of times, when people discuss the phenomenon of employers ending work-from-home and try to make their employees come back to the office, people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices.

I don't follow the logic at all. How would doing this benefit an employer in any way?

 

I'm not a parent, but going by pop culture, it seems like literally every child has the same fears.

In pre-modern times, I imagine that they'd be sleeping in the same room as the parents, but if modern notions of privacy don't permit that, seems we could at least design an enclosed capsule or something.

 

Ask The World

!asktheworld@lemm.ee

Back on reddit, I really enjoyed participating in the various "Ask " subs, so I'd like to get something similar started here. This community is going to be for general questions for anyone from any country, not directed as a specific country. Ask about culture, lifestyles, geography, whatever you want to know that might be different in a different place.

I hope some of you will be interested. I'd really like to see Lemmy grow in general.

view more: next ›