The plummeting should take care of itself from that point. You might need assistance with the rotation though.
Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn't everything.
I'm looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.
But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player's winnings.
You're right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That's a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.
Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.
I don't know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren't, but I don't see how that works in their favor.
You're saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to "double-or-nothing"? I was thinking they'd only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.
That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house's favor.
Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.
If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning... but they'll get 8 times their initial bet. So it's technically a fair game, right?
The idea is that if the coin flip goes in the player's favor, they win double their bet. After winning, they can either collect their winnings, or risk them all on another coin flip to have a chance at doubling them. The initial bet is fixed at, let's say $1.
Mathematically, this seems like a fair game. The expected value of each individual round is zero for both house and player.
Intuitively, though, I can't shake the notion that the player will tend to keep flipping until they lose. In theory, it isn't the wrong decision to keep flipping since the expected value of the flip doesn't change, but it feels like it is.
Any insight?
I feel like he was working up to a punchline about haven mistaken a toy for an electric school bus, but for some reason failed to get there.
I've seen other comics where Everett rejected the concept. One was when he told a woman he believed in it (in the sense of wanting it to happen) and threatened to kill children, and another when he told a man who brought it up that he was introducing him to race homicide. (I guess the term "genocide" hadn't entered the vocabulary.)
Also videos that weren't intended for kids but superficially looked like they were got involuntarily flagged as such and had their comments removed.
A separate site would have been a much better solution.
Yeah, I can't speak to the behind-the-scenes drama, but I agree that Pierce was at his best in Season One, where he was a little bit grandiose and a little bit of a jerk but still had moments of wisdom and humanity. I always liked the talk he gave Jeff in the boating episode.
Turning him into a total buffoon villain from season 2 onwards was a change for the worse.
I just kind of wonder with how casually people express these thoughts. It's a little disturbing how normalized it is to entertain such notions, given how other types of fantasies are very stigmatized.
Like when discussing char.ai, acting out sexual or romantic fantasies is something a lot of people do, but it's considered embarrassing. While people freely discuss violent roleplays without any shame.
And then there's the cliche of fantasizing about killing one's boss or coworkers.
Are these really common thoughts for mentally sound people to have?
Taiwan had the same concern. What they did is make it so that receipts also work as lottery tickets, to encourage people to ask for them and hold on to them.
Yeah. I mean I agree that focusing on change at the systemic level is more effective than changing individual habits, but what people don't realize is that the systemic change we need is the kind that will force those individual changes.
Taxing or regulating the oil companies will help, but it will help by making energy more expensive so people are forced to make do with less.
I found it on Know Your Meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pondering-my-orb
That was my first thought too. What's this orb pondering business everyone's on about?
What I usually love about musicals is the variety of songs and subject matters, and with the exception of the Klingon song, the songs all felt the same.
Looks too big to be an aphid. Most aphid species are tiny. Ladybugs eat them whole. The largest aphid species would be barely noticeable on casual observation.
In addition to being in her personal space, he's also blocking her exit, which could make her feel trapped or threatened.
It's good to discuss these things openly. I sympathize with people who don't intuitively understand them, as I'm one of them.
I've never heard of these candidates, they have no party affiliation, and there's almost no information about them online that I can find.
Are those positions just for people who work closely with those departments to vote on?
A lot of times, when people discuss the phenomenon of employers ending work-from-home and try to make their employees come back to the office, people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices.
I don't follow the logic at all. How would doing this benefit an employer in any way?
I'm not a parent, but going by pop culture, it seems like literally every child has the same fears.
In pre-modern times, I imagine that they'd be sleeping in the same room as the parents, but if modern notions of privacy don't permit that, seems we could at least design an enclosed capsule or something.
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Local
Reminder: Please specify the country you're answering for.
Reminder: Please state what country you're answering for.
I really don't want to be overly strict with the rules, especially while this sub is so small. But I think this is an important rule, and I'm considering being more strict about its enforcement.
The reason I think it's important is that this is meant to be an educational community. In many cases, I assume people don't say where they're from because they assume it's obvious to people based on their answer. It may be, to people from the US or familiar with its zeitgeist. But this community isn't just for them. The last thing I want is for this community to suffer from US-defaultism.
For that reason, I'm thinking that from here on, if I see an answer that doesn't state which country it's for, I'll give a reminder. After that, the poster will have 24 hours to edit it into their post, and it will be deleted if they have not done so.
What do you think? Too strict? Not strict enough?
I asked this before elsewhere, but I thought it led to some interesting answers.
I always try to find a shady parking space whenever I need to park for awhile. I have a steering wheel cover, which is a lifesaver. Sometimes I think about getting one of those boards you put on the windshield, or even a full reflective car cover, but I'm not sure if that would be worth it.
I also tend to worry that parking in the sun is bad for my car battery (I have an EV.) Are there any grounds for that worry?
!asktheworld@lemm.ee
Back on reddit, I really enjoyed participating in the various "Ask <country>" subs, so I'd like to get something similar started here. This community is going to be for general questions for anyone from any country, not directed as a specific country. Ask about culture, lifestyles, geography, whatever you want to know that might be different in a different place.
I hope some of you will be interested. I'd really like to see Lemmy grow in general.
Please remember to say which country you're from. We don't have flairs here.