A VERY interesting article and my letter in response.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Dr. Muth;

I enjoyed reading “Scientists Get Primates to Play Cards”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/2014/02/28/scientists-get-primates-to-play-cards/

I have several comments to make.

Firstly, stating "casinos in Nevada made over one million dollars in just the month of December” is incorrect

It should read one BILLION dollars.

Secondly, Macau, is NOT as you stated, in the Philippines.

It is a semi-autonomous sector of (coastal) China.

Thirdly, your reference to the "Iowa Gambling Task” needs no comment as I am a retired psychologist.

Finally, The casino dice game of Craps provides an empirically (observable) illustration of your theorem.

There is a wide spectrum of wagers available at this game.

The "House Advantage" varies in a profound fashion.
It may as well be termed the “Player’s Disadvantage."

There are wagers where the “House Advantage” is ruinous
as well as wagers where the “House Advantage" is modest.

Without "putting a fine point on it” let it suffice to say that
one can make wagers that the mathematical expectation
is for the player (punter) to lose a very small fraction of 1%
on the sum of the wagers; and, conversely bets that permit
the house to ravage the bettor’s wallets with an expectation
of their losing in excess of 20% on average !

The modal player is rather innumerate, but even when there
appears to be a modicum of arithmetic understanding, virtually
no players opt to play in the ("smarter") fashion that reduces
the "house advantage” to the minimum.

That is understandably attributable to the riskier wagers having
infrequent but larger payoffs, creating the illusion that if sufficient
“luck” is in the offing, the rewards will be highly significant. Thus,
the voluntary victims wagering their money are simply bored by the
most efficacious betting methods, and often consider same as being
craven. “I came here to gamble.” is a frequent refrain.

Incidentally, my style of betting results in an expectation of merely -0.065%

e.g. if the sum of my wagers is $1,000 ~ the average result will be that of losing $6.50;

although the Standard Deviation will be sizable, creating rather volatile results.

SEE: http://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/

[21gunsalute]

Somebody needs a new proof-reader!

[Skull]

Nice response letter!!

In fact, I found it much more enlightening than the article itself, which I din't find well written neither well explained.

For me an extreme example of what is being discussed here is the lottery. It is not uncommon to see people who wagers every time in the lottery which (here where I live) has 50,000,000:1 odds. Instead, if they would invest there money they would have a decent sure payoff.

I doesn't seem to, but these small bets add up! And it is not only the interest you will gain, it is the money you will NOT throw away in such a ridiculous wager.

I guess the article, your response and what I am saying is simply about our over-optimistic self when it turns to gambling. Somehow we think Luck's light will shine on us....

When I ask my lottery-afficcionados friends if they would wager that they can correctly guess the resulting numbers of six consecutive throws of 60-sided dice, they just tell me to shut up not to ruin their dreams....


(I know I am actually giving them worse odds, but it's easier to explain that way...)

[Gronbog]

Interesting. Some of the items in your response appear to have already been corrected. e.g. million -> billion

[Three]

Interesting. Some of the items in your response appear to have already been corrected. e.g. million -> billion

the author quickly made corrections.