Display:
Back in a couple hours.  Let me know if you and Colman want to continue.

I'm IN!

In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 09:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Assume a collection of agents taking actions with uncertain payoffs.

Assume the average payoff is 103% (allowing for economic growth) and that the payoff distribution extends down to 0% (ruin).

Assume the agents can place more distinct bets the more money they have. (Assuming a nonzero smallest bet size suffices)

Then the wealthier players can diversify their variance away and capture the 103%. The less wealthy players cannot and are more likely to go bust.

If the average payoff is less than 100% so the game is a loss to players, and you must play, it is known that diversification doesn't work because you want to have sufficient variance to be able to have payoffs about 100% some of the time.

Is that it? The proofs are left as an exercise for the (bored) reader.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope.  I have other ideas.  Will explain later but this is looking like the germ for a computerized game for kids/adults.  Are there such things already on the market?

More later.  Have to hit the sack, rest my back (I'm a budding poet).

In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series