Would you take this bet?

Brings back memories though :D
Speaking of not maximizing EV because of evolutionary coding creating frames, selective memory and prejudices:
http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/963929/Is_this_wrong_.html

omg had to stop watching around the 3:30 mark because I was starting to rage.

But should he have switched cases?

edit: The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that you had a 1/26 chance of picking both the $1 and $1mil case at the start? So switching would be irrelevant. But because there's 7 $1mil cases in that special episode (I think), would it be more +ev to switch?

Intuitively I'd say yes, but I can't rationally explain it and i don't think Monty Hall experiment is valid in this case

On May 01 2015 11:28 MadeInPolanD wrote: On a serious note: just cause there is a camera, doesn't mean that people think he's legit and it's not some sort of a con. ( at least at first, and they are not gonna say that bluntly, so they say: "i don't know, i just feel like that" etc. )

This

If some random dude on the street offered me to flip 10$ for 12$ i would tell him to fuck off thinking hes a scammer.

I don't get this Trav - the probability's still the same.

It's like in poker on the turn 6max to river a specific card on the river when you are on T, there's 36 cards in the deck left, but the probability to hit a specific one is still out of 46 cards - you just don't know what people folded.

guess in poker you can weighted discount some cards by guessing + weighting preflop ranges of ppl that folded+villain's range (i.e. OTT with a low fd in BvB scenario villain has likely a lot of fd combos in his range as well, so you can safely guess that there will be on average less that "9 cards" left if you know what I mean) , but in this case it's completely random since people never had the information in the first place. Switching should be completely irrelevant.

On May 01 2015 21:11 Floofy wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2015 11:28 MadeInPolanD wrote: On a serious note: just cause there is a camera, doesn't mean that people think he's legit and it's not some sort of a con. ( at least at first, and they are not gonna say that bluntly, so they say: "i don't know, i just feel like that" etc. ) This If some random dude on the street offered me to flip 10$ for 12$ i would tell him to fuck off thinking hes a scammer.

This has been replicated under academic conditions, adjusted for error etc. not sure if exactly $10 and $12 but exactly the same principle with the same result.

Thank god the world is full of these people (but we're wired to be more short term oriented, so we can't feel as much sadness for ourselves as we should watching the video)

On May 01 2015 21:10 Spitfiree wrote: Intuitively I'd say yes, but I can't rationally explain it and i don't think Monty Hall experiment is valid in this case

Let's say theres 8 cases, with 7 1M and 1 1$

If you pick one, then the guys of the show remove 6 cases which all contains 1M, its pretty obvious you should NOT be switching. You have 7/8 to have 1M.

But now, this scenario is actually different. When you open one case, the probability that your case is the 1$ actually INCREASES if you open a 1M case. Once you opened 6 cases, your case is now 50% to be 1$.

That's why I said switching should be completely irrelevant Lemon . But I guess I see your point, even with more $1mil cases, it's irrelevant. I just think that it's pretty clear the monty hall problem doesn't apply here. The logic for that is you have 1/26 chance of picking the $1mil case. So with 2 cases left. $1mil and $1. You have a 25/26 chance you didn't pick the $1mil case so you should switch. BUT, the logic can be reversed because having a goal of $1mil in mind doesn't change the fact that you started with 1/26 to pick ANY case at the start. So even with 2 cases left both being $1 and $1mil the probability of having the $1 and $1mil case is the same so switching is irrelevant. I think I might be over explaining this as Im drunk. But whatever. Maybe Im not even making sense.

Also pure $ev like you said is 500k, and they offered him 400k so taking no deal is +ev but you're never going to be in the situation agian probably so it might actually be +ev to take the 400k deal and lose 100k in equity?

I'd snap take the 415k in that situation because it's such a large amount of money for me and although our EV is 500k it's not like I can expect to ever be in that situation again i.e. I can't repeat it. I could do a lot with 415k and while a million would be sick, $1 would hurt and taking 85k off is like saying your flipping between $830k and $1 and you'll run exactly on EV. Would flip $10 with 0 edge happily but I think there I'd pretend I wouldn't to get a more +ev flip. It's 0EV and basically entertainment.

I would be skeptical if some stranger on the street with a camera following him offered me this kind of game, esp when he starts offering better odds. Feels very much like a husstle

On May 02 2015 04:59 Trav94 wrote: That's why I said switching should be completely irrelevant Lemon . But I guess I see your point, even with more $1mil cases, it's irrelevant. I just think that it's pretty clear the monty hall problem doesn't apply here. The logic for that is you have 1/26 chance of picking the $1mil case. So with 2 cases left. $1mil and $1. You have a 25/26 chance you didn't pick the $1mil case so you should switch. BUT, the logic can be reversed because having a goal of $1mil in mind doesn't change the fact that you started with 1/26 to pick ANY case at the start. So even with 2 cases left both being $1 and $1mil the probability of having the $1 and $1mil case is the same so switching is irrelevant. I think I might be over explaining this as Im drunk. But whatever. Maybe Im not even making sense. Also pure $ev like you said is 500k, and they offered him 400k so taking no deal is +ev but you're never going to be in the situation agian probably so it might actually be +ev to take the 400k deal and lose 100k in equity?

$ =/= $ in that case

basically the larger the amount compared to your income, the less is the last dollar worth the first one in terms of utility you get out of it.

It's called diminishing marginal diminishing utility, what ggplz was explaining

On May 02 2015 13:37 TalentedTom wrote: I would be skeptical if some stranger on the street with a camera following him offered me this kind of game, esp when he starts offering better odds. Feels very much like a husstle

Fair point but as he explained (tomson's post#12) you could rest assured it was a legit coin toss. I doubt he'd mind if you insisted on your own coin or something either If he does, then yea... run.

On May 01 2015 21:19 LemOn[5thF] wrote: This has been replicated under academic conditions, adjusted for error etc. not sure if exactly $10 and $12 but exactly the same principle with the same result.

Yup, and if anyone is a broke college student at the moment I highly recommend looking into participating in this type of study. Its just straight extra cash for playing economic "games", and they'll probably pay you even if you don't bet.

from the comments on youtube:

+Veritasium Is there any reason why the people you interview of the course of many of your videos tend to be less intelligent ?

rofl

On May 01 2015 12:19 Nazgul wrote: It's interesting because every person here would accept the bet based on our experience and general understanding of value. However the emotion that is explained as the reason for why these people decline is something that I think every/most poker players share, which is that losses are experienced stronger than winnings. When winning in poker I saw it as standard and it didn't make me feel particularly positive/different. Losing however definitely was associated with negative emotion. Of course this is associated also with the fact that our expected value of playing is positive to begin with. Additionally I imagine they just edited out the people who just said yes to $12 vs $10.

very well said. agree

I would suspect some clever scam too

For those who are wondering, I convinced my interviewees that the bet was not a scam: they could inspect the coin, flip it themselves, use their own coin etc. I explained that the experiment was intended to explore their approach to risk. It was fear of losing $10, not distrust, that led them to decline the bet.

Great psychological experiment, explaining exactly what you are measuring :D

On May 03 2015 07:29 MadeInPolanD wrote: Show nested quote + For those who are wondering, I convinced my interviewees that the bet was not a scam: they could inspect the coin, flip it themselves, use their own coin etc. I explained that the experiment was intended to explore their approach to risk. It was fear of losing $10, not distrust, that led them to decline the bet. Great psychological experiment, explaining exactly what you are measuring :D

If you think about it as an economics experiment, then explaining the experiment to them in detail, including telling that you are exploring their approach to risk, may be required (depending on what you are trying to measure).