Ha! Sure. But the last comment from the Gambler is the punchline. On 9/1/20 3:25 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > I'm pretty sure what's being talked about is "Gambler's Ruin" > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin) a paradoxical result > where infinite wealth will always win out, even when the odds are > stacked against. I see from the Wikipedia article, that this has been > known about since Blaise Pascal's time. I remember it being discussed > in my undergraduate stats course, so the "Academic" in this piece > seems remarkably ill-informed. > > Cheers > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:17:57PM -0700, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >>> >>> Gambler: If you do not see the difference between losing money (in a >>> positive expected value environment) and gaining money (in a negative >>> expected value environment), then I gain confidence that I am talking to a >>> true Academic! The following is Python code that simulates 1,000 Gam-blers >>> each running 1,000 Bets. Each bet either loses 55% (which is multiplying a >>> negative number, the Bankroll, times 1.55) or wins 50% (which is >>> multiplying the Bankroll times 0.5). >>> >>> Jeremy Gwiazda
-- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
