I personally see more of the situational rationalization at the craps table since it's largely the same premise, but couched in a more public setting. I get loads of entertainment watching analytical types trying to explain to the hunch-player why hardways are bad bets and streaks are a myth and place bets have a larger house edge than pass+odds. Sooner or later someone hits 4 or 5 hardways and/or a bunch of 6's (or whatever number he's placed) and the hunch-player is (usually loudly) going on about how he "knew" shooter X or 6 "was due, KNEW IT!!!" And that's his "proof" against the analytical-type's premise. Said hunch-players conveniently forgets the other 10 shooters/numbers he "knew, KNEW!!!" were due but weren't. I've also noticed that the same guy is usually pressing everything on those bets and often finds himself muttering "one more [whatever] and I would have won some cash".
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: harry.porter@verizon.net
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:18:00 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
Kudos to NOTI for clearing up some of the misconceptions about pigeons and the Monte Carlo problem. (Seriously)
What I want to offer up is that I think Frank introduced a red herring into the general topic when he suggested that "it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events." Hell, scientists engage in queries all the time where they do just that. SETI is one of the most notorious examples.
The fallacy that I believe Frank desired to highlight was attributing meaning to patterns in random events without first having subject the phenomenon to appropriate statistical tests to evaluate the probability of such a pattern occurring "at random", as opposed through some distortion of natural odds.
When it comes to the belief that some have that they can improve their odds in the casino by strategically switching machines, it has to be conceded that the M.C. pigeon "switchers" were right on the money. But the math fully supports their call .. intuitively, they made the right choice.
But in some situations intuition is a poor play partner, and the casino "machine switch" has no such support in the underlying math. As I noted before, ideally, such behavior has no penalty (such as when the switch is to another equivalent machine and doesn't impact other aspects of play). But, in practice, I often see it give rise to sub-optimal choices that impact the player, and sometimes those around them.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
