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???
