Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Create a Statistical Guide To Gambling
New submitter yukiloo writes "An early Christmas treat for the ordinary Joe who is stuck with a Christmas list that he cannot afford and is running out of time comes from two mathematicians (Evangelos Georgiadis, MIT, and Doron Zeilberger, Rutgers) and a computer scientist (Shalosh B. Ekhad). In their paper 'How to gamble if you're in a hurry,' they present algorithmic strategies and reclaim the world of gambling, which they say has up till recently flourished on the continuous Kolmogorov paradigm by some sugary discrete code that could make us hopefully richer, if not wiser. It's interesting since their work applies an advanced version of what seems to be the Kelly criterion."
Half this submission makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise.
The news story posted on Slashdot not that long ago on a casino successfully suing a gambler of all his winnings because the machine's system for preventing you from winning wasn't working tells me that the only paradigm in use is "give us your money... or else!"
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The three authors completely agree on the mathematics, but they have somewhat different views about the
significance of this project. Here they are.
Evangelos Georgiadis’ Conclusion
We provided a playful yet algorithmic glimpse to a field that has up till recently flourished on the Kolmogorov,
measure-theoretic paradigm [as evidenced by the work of Dubins and Savage [4] (see [7] for more recent
developments]. The advent and omnipresence of computers, however, ushered an era of symbol crunching
and number crunching, where a few lines of code can give rise to powerful algorithms. And it is the ouput
of algorithms that usually provides insight (and inspiration) for conjectures and theorems. Those, in turn,
can then be proven in their respective measure-theoretic settings. Additionally, a computational approach
lends itself easily to more complex scenarios that would otherwise be considered pathological phenomena
(and would be fiendishly time-consuming to prove – even for immortals like Kolmogorov and von Neumann).
Doron Zeilberger’s Conclusion
Traditional mathematicians like Dubins and Savage use traditional proof-based mathematics, and also work
in the framework of continuous probability theory using the pernicious Kolmogorov, measure-theoretic, par-
adigm. This approach was fine when we didn’t have computers, but we can do so much more with both
symbol-crunching and number-crunching, in addition to naive simulation, and develop algorithms and write
software, that ultimately is a much more useful (and rewarding) activity than “proving” yet-another-theorem
in an artificial and fictional continuous, measure-theoretic, world, that is furthermore utterly boring.
Shalosh B. Ekhad’s Conclusion
These humans, they are so emotional! That’s why they never went very far.
The paper is about how much to bet (your strategy) on a given round if you have x dollars and want to win N dollars. This is problematic for two reasons.
First, their method only works when the probability of winning is >0.5, which never happens in any real casino.
Second, almost nobody really bets this way. Most people don't go to a casino looking to win N dollars. Instead, they go to the casino hoping to play for time T without losing more than N dollars (although people might not be up front about that goal).
Another problem is that they assume that the probabiilty is constant with each round. That's true for some games (roulette), but not for others (blackjack).
Actually the actual article is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.1645v1.pdf
Your summary accurately describes the definition of gambling as opposed to investing.
;)
Gambling is placing money at risk with an expectation of loss.
Investing is placing money at risk with an expectation of gain.
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the state lotteries they sold the public by claiming "The funds will benefit education" would put themselves out of business if people were actually learning math.
I'm not sure if the original submitter had his tongue in cheek by describing the co-author Ekhad as a "computer scientist." Just in case he didn't, note that Shalosh B. Ekhad is actually Zeilberger's computer. Since most of Zeilberger's research depends heavily on computations, and (I think) as a nod to some of his philosophical positions, Zeilberger usually lists his computer as a coauthor on his papers. So I guess Ekhad is a computer scientist, but not quite in the way we usually mean. :)
You don't have to be bad at math to play the lottery. A buck for a ticket is a small price to pay for the entertainment you get when the numbers come up. Especially if your friends play, it can be a social event when the numbers are announced.
You are lost in a maze of twisty URLs, all the same.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That would depend on how good AI is these days.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Explain how people learning math would put the lottery out of business. People are gambling for an adrenaline rush, not to satisfy some mathematical equation. Guess what, some people posion their bodies with alcohol on occasion to enjoy the side effects. Some of them even have extensive education in biology and medicine.
Your summary accurately describes the definition of gambling as opposed to investing.
Gambling is placing money at risk with an expectation of loss.
Investing is placing money at risk with an expectation of gain.
So, pumping money into a [commodities|housing|internet|gold] bubble really is considered investing then? I guess this explains a lot (and yes, this is a slam on the sheeple not the parent).
If you derive pleasure from losing money, send me $20 and I'll respond with an email telling you whether or not you won $40. ;)
Are you referring to the upcoming Facebook IPO, or is this a new scam of your own creation :)
You don't have to be bad at math to play the lottery. A buck for a ticket is a small price to pay for the entertainment you get when the numbers come up. Especially if your friends play, it can be a social event when the numbers are announced.
Well, honestly, you play correctly. If you're not actually expecting to win, but you find some entertainment in sitting there with your friends waiting for the numbers to come up, more power to you. I don't think you represent the majority, though. I think most of the people playing the lottery are people who spend money that they could actually use for more practical things, in the hope of moving up from poverty. I don't have numbers to back this feeling up, but I do see those local news stories every time the jackpot goes up into the $200 million range with poor schmoes buying hundreds of dollars worth of tickets. Congratulations, dude: you just increased your odds of winning from nearly impossible to still nearly impossible.
The above is not an argument against the lottery, btw. I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from their own bad decisions. It is, however, an argument for better public education. People would make less bad decisions if they had the tools to analyze a situation better.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Reminds me of a successful scam I read about, from back in the late 1950s or thereabouts. They put an ad in the classifieds of many papers, saying simply "Send your dollars to GEB, PO BOX 123". Lots of people thought this was some charity and sent money. The Postal Inspectors (US Postal Service police) came after the guy, charging him with mail fraud. His successful defense was that he made no promises, only asked people for money.
AFAIK this particular trick was quashed in the future, as newspapers refused to take ads like that.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
My guide to making the most money gambling: Don't.
In any casino the odds are always, ALWAYS stacked against you. They don't hide this fact, either. The odds are published and you can easily notice that the payout is less than the probability of getting something. They are in business to make money, it has to be this way or they'd go broke.
So don't gamble to make money. If you enjoy the thrill of it, if it entertains you, and you can afford it, then by all means. But don't try and find some way to gamble "quickly" that will make you money because it won't. Any money made is purely luck and your strategy of what you bet on will play very little in to it.
Play the game for enjoyment.
If you want entertainment, get a blackjack app for your phone. It'll cost less than a lottery ticket.
Actually, I would argue that "giving blowjobs to whoever passes by", done in the right location, would arguably have a much higher chance of earning significant money. :P
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I think your argument makes a lot of sense to be used against a lottery. At least.. against a state-run lottery. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from their own decisions, but neither should it be in the business of encouraging people to make decisions that are harmful to themselves.
If we're not going to allow non state-run lotteries, then we shouldn't have any lotteries at all.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
After having read the paper it becomes evident that both authors have a liking for analyzing the problem in a discrete light. My degree is in mathematics, number theory so I am slightly biased myself. For that matter, I got intrigued by the fact that when dealing with the continuous version of gambling one does deal with unrealistic assumptions. One of which is ... money is indefinitely divisible which of course this is a bonkers assumption. Now assuming money has finite integral values, the analysis becomes much more difficult, particularly in the light of edge effects. So, that is why the authors seem to resort to heavy computer simulation.
All of this effort and brainpower to produce a guide that might as well say "Don't gamble"
I think your argument makes a lot of sense to be used against a lottery. At least.. against a state-run lottery. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from their own decisions, but neither should it be in the business of encouraging people to make decisions that are harmful to themselves.
Well, I like that it's a way for the government to raise money which is entirely voluntary. I'm not one of those guys who are completely anti-tax, but that doesn't mean I don't prefer a form of voluntary tax, which is what the lottery is, over the compulsory kind whenever possible. I also don't see it as encouraging bad behavior anymore than a government building a bridge is encouraging people to jump off it. It is possible to cross a bridge safely, and it's possible play the lottery responsibly, so if you don't it's your own fault. What's sad is that a lot of people don't know that they are playing irresponsibly, because they don't really understand the odds.
That said, I do agree with you that we should allow lotteries that not state-run as well. I don't like anti-gambling legislation. Gambling regulation is fine, and even necessary in order to prevent scams, but prohibiting gambling all together is the government trying to be your nanny.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Funny, I think just the opposite. Since people seem to find a way to gamble one way or another (case in point, the current state of online poker), the profits may as well go to something useful and be run by a group that is ostensibly accountable to the public. I think the government would be much better suited to take a holistic view of gambling and encourage it less than a private entity.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz