Quantifying Good & Bad Decisions

[feline57]

I'm guessing the people who would be the MOST vocal would be the 16% losers who were told they should win.

And also the 16% who were told they should lose but won.


the other 84% in both groups got what they were told to expect whether it was a win/lose. It was "expected" So they didn't feel compelled to make a fuss about it.

The most "noise" would come from the "unexpected" results groups.

[BobDancer]

Frank: You're giving people 2 hours to answer your question and then calling them out for it?  There's a chance that not everybody spends all day on this site. I suspect some of us look at the sight once a day at most. And in the case of this thread we will have been called out twice while not even knowing it. Also, knowing that 68% of results will be within one standard deviation is not what most people would call simple math. Yes I could have answered the question, but I took probability classes in college. I don't think I knew the 68% number in high school --- and I was a better than average math student at the time. Please take this criticism as friendly. You have been my biggest supporter on this site. I appreciate that. But I think you over-estimate the mathematical competence of the vast majority of the people here. Bob

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank: You're giving people 2 hours to answer your question and then calling them out for it?  There's a chance that not everybody spends all day on this site. I suspect some of us look at the sight once a day at most. And in the case of this thread we will have been called out twice while not even knowing it. Also, knowing that 68% of results will be within one standard deviation is not what most people would call simple math. Yes I could have answered the question, but I took probability classes in college. I don't think I knew the 68% number in high school --- and I was a better than average math student at the time. Please take this criticism as friendly. You have been my biggest supporter on this site. I appreciate that. But I think you over-estimate the mathematical competence of the vast majority of the people here. BobI always expect a lot of people, lest of all me.Oh and I get the forum on my phone. I assumed incorrectly that other people did as well.Nice to hear from you...

[Frank Kneeland]

I'm guessing the people who would be the MOST vocal would be the 16% losers who were told they should win.

And also the 16% who were told they should lose but won.


the other 84% in both groups got what they were told to expect whether it was a win/lose. It was "expected" So they didn't feel compelled to make a fuss about it.

The most "noise" would come from the "unexpected" results groups.
I would agree with all that. It's not a scientific study, but for what's it's worth those are the same conclusions I came to.And this has implications I'll cover later.I'm going to wait for another day and then post my intended ending to this thread.

[backsider]

Frank I appreciate what youre doing here and how youre doing it even though I dont understand some of it. Im learning a lot just by reading. At least the discussion is something someone like me can follow, unlike what at first happened to your effort on lva.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank I appreciate what youre doing here and how youre doing it even though I dont understand some of it. Im learning a lot just by reading. At least the discussion is something someone like me can follow, unlike what at first happened to your effort on lva.Oh thanks backsider. You inspired this thread, so I'm glad you're liking it. When you mentioned to me about the disproportionate number of jackpots posted from negative pay-tables, it got me thinking. I called a few of my buddies and asked if they had ever posted JP pictures on vpFREE or here, and half of them answered, "What's vpFREE?". It was then I realized I might be on to something.I have a nice wrap up for this thread, which will be total unscientific conjecture on my part. So this will really be one of those times when I'm looking for input from all. Maybe if we all put our heads together we can come up with something approximating the reality. The more that chime in the better, and I don't think there can be any wrong answers.~FKP.S. Yeah, it sure is hard to keep the LVAers on topic. Blink and a thread on the efficacy of nuclear power, turns into football scores and locations for cheap beer...BTW one can usually get cheep beer near nuclear power stations.

[BillyJoe]

I agree with Bob D. I just saw this thread, and have been scolded twice for not answering when called upon.
My opinion, though belated, is that negative occurrences produce far more "noise" than positive occurrences. And as far as percentages go, if you are in that 16% group, it is no solace that it is a smaller percentage, because the impact to YOU is 100%.

[Frank Kneeland]

Wrap UP???I've always
found in life that the hardest thing to hear was silence. ~FK


Though the situation posed in this thread was purely theoretical, I
believe the basic concepts it illustrates are perfectly valid.
People can lose playing with an edge, and they can win playing with
the odds against them. Indeed, math predicts this perfectly. And if
things go as planed people are far less likely to sound a call to
arms than they are in the face of the unexpected. We mostly hear from the 16%.


In the real world people playing with an advantage are often playing
games with far less than a 1% edge, and they are playing games with
much greater standard deviation than a mere 1% as well. Therefore,
their chance of success may be much less than 84% after 1 million hands. Conversely, those
playing negative expectancy games with massive fluctuation like TDB,
may have slightly more than a 16% chance of beating the odds and
coming out ahead over the course of a million hands. Whatever the
real world numbers may be, I think we have firmly established that
when it comes time to chat about it, we are far more likely to hear
from those for whom things have not gone as planned. Now consider
this.


There is a bizarre human tendency to accept the common, no matter how
negative, and rage against the uncommon, no matter how unlikely. In
fact, our indignity at failure is directly proportionate to the
probability of success. Not understanding me. No worries, this
example should do the trick.

Scenario 1

1000 people invest in a venture they are told has a 51% chance for
success. Things go exactly as planned and 510 of the investors make
money, while 490 lose. Likely, the winners count their money and get
on with their lives. Also likely, the losers lick their wounds and
get on with their lives, because a 51% chance for success is so
small, they really have no one to blame for making such a risky
investment in the first place except themselves. Since losing was
likely, losing isn't unexpected, and the expected is easily accepted.
(do not try to say that ten times fast)

Scenario 2

1000 people invest in a venture they are told has a 99% chance of
success. Things go exactly as planned and 990 of the investors make
money, while only 10 lose. OK we know what the winners are doing,
they are looking for more opportunities like this one, while sipping
a Mai Tai on Maui. The losers on the other hand are far more likely
to be outraged, doing the talk show circuit, and filling class action
law suits. Why, because they were told they had a 99% chance of
success and though that doesn't mean everyone wins, it's what people
hear. In fact, studies done into this phenomenon have shown that
anything much over 90% is converted in most human minds to meaning
“certainty”. Since in this case losing was unexpected, it in NOT
accepted. The ten losers may suffer permanent cognitive distortion,
and change their entire lives around, doubting all further
investments no matter how certain.


When something common happens that's negative, people take it in
stride. When something negative happens that's really uncommon,
people basically lose their minds. Why? Because probabilities like
one in three million lose their meaning when you get struck by
lighting and for you the chance suddenly rises to 100%. If you want
to see probability crumble to dust in the wind, just go to a lighting
strike survivors meeting where you'll find everybody's been hit, at
least once!


I can't say anything for sure, and as I said before, this is all
conjecture, but here's my opinion.


Video Poker machines may or may not be completely random. However, if
you'd like to see something really non-random, you need look no
further than the disposition and demographic distribution of people
we see talking most vocally on on-line forums, which is
disproportionately made up of those for whom things have not gone as
planned. Unfortunately, due to human nature, from those that got or
are getting what they expected, we will hear only science. And due to
attentional bias they may not even be conspicuous by their
absence, just absent.


I'd like to wrap this up with something poetic.


You've all heard, “consider your audience”. Now, as an audience,
I'd like you to consider your performers. For this is indeed a show,
but not a show where you're getting to see the entire casting call.
You're only seeing the ones that got the part, and unfortunately the
requirements for the job were extremely unlikely results, success in
the face of predicted failure, failure in the face of predicted
success and a host of other things, that if taken out of context will
do nothing for the cause of rational thought.


Thoughts???

[BillyJoe]

Well, Frank, you asked for opinions, so here are some of mine. I actually do not expect to consistently win in a casino at VP, so I only post pics of my larger winning hands, because they are truly exceptional for me. This is, for the most part, because of the "limit" of hands that I play, being a casual player. I don't know if I played a million hands last year, but I know that I played less than would be necessary to even approach one std deviation of the expected norm on a particular pay table (and I don't even play the same pay table all the time). So "possibility" often is stronger than "probability". No, I do not live in Rhode Island, but I bought some $400M+ Powerball tickets for last Saturday anyway, and yes, I lost.  
I have said, and I mean it, that I am going to play lower volatility VP in 2012 as compared to 2011. I recognize that this, in itself, will not guarantee any particular results this year, positive or negative. If this means that I am lowering my expectations for big hits, than so be it. I really just want to enjoy my VP play when in a casino.    

[Frank Kneeland]

Thanks Billyjoe.I guess what would be the most useful input is if everyone agrees that VP forums are disproportionately made up of people in the 16%, what should we do about it, and how can we use this information to improve our forum experience?If I'm right, and there really isn't anyway to know for sure, all I've done is to define a possible problem. I'm right out of ideas on what to do about it.I know this, we can't look to the 84% for help, they're disinterested and too busy getting what they expected.