Gambling and faith, simplistic hypothetical

Saddlepoint · #1 10-04-2005, 10:11 PM

Someone offers you 1.1:1 on a coin flip, a gamble which you are permitted to take an infinite number of times. On each coin flip, you are permitted no less and no more than 1 dollar (Let's say that after a you win x number of flips, you can begin to risk more. I'm throwing this in so that nobody can say it's not worth your time to play). Super-important note: For the purposes of this hypothetical, you somehow know with 100% certainty that the coin and the bookie are both completely honest and unbiased. Would you stop playing if you lose the first 10 times you tried? The first 100? The first 1000?

With honest self-assessment, if you somehow knew that the arrangement was completely honest and random, would you be capable of continuing to play until you could no longer afford to lose?

Piers · #2 10-04-2005, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With honest self-assessment, if you somehow knew that the arrangement was completely honest and random, would you be capable of continuing to play until you could no longer afford to lose

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only because anything can follows from a negative.

There would quickly be a point where the evidence of the successive failures would be more convincing evidence of bias than what ever had made me previously the arrangement was honest.

It’s possible that some form of brain sugary or hypnosis could change this, however it’s not clear that I would still be the same person.

Saddlepoint · #3 10-04-2005, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There would quickly be a point where the evidence of the successive failures would be more convincing evidence of bias than what ever had made me previously the arrangement was honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you're right, and that made this question very difficult to ask.

Here's a less roundabout way of putting what I was actually curious about:

There's this thing about psychological toughness. The swings in most forms of gambling, and definitely in poker, can often be so prolonged and so drastic that it's very hard to learn to shrug them off. Harder than learning the math. We know they'll even out eventually, but I find myself having to reassure myself of that often. Is this not a form of "faith"? Believing in something that runs counter to what the evidence says? And short-term results are what we're used to using as evidence. I sometimes imagine if this is what people of religious faith have to do if they read scientific evidence of something that runs counter to their beliefs.

So basically I'm just wondering how long of a bad run it would take to crack someone's "faith" in the math.

Piers · #4 10-04-2005, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically I'm just wondering how long of a bad run it would take to crack someone's "faith" in the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given a choice between.

A) The maths is wrong. A ten thousnad big bet loosing streak is not unusal.
B) I have had a ten thousand big bet loosing streak, but its just very very bad luck and I am still beating the game by a Big bet an hour.
C) The game is fixed in same way, and I have been cheated out of my money.
D) I am a losing player.

Well what do you think?

Having said that, I agree with your general point about psychological toughness. People who do not understand the maths are likely to get complexly confused by a hundred big bet loosing or winning streak. Understanding the maths, thats really understanding the maths should sort this problem.

I recently had a 200 big bet loosing run, the thought that the maths was wrong never occurred to me. I don't believe it ever would.

Edit: changed A & B a bit

Saddlepoint · #5 10-04-2005, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically I'm just wondering how long of a bad run it would take to crack someone's "faith" in the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given a choice between.

A) The maths is wrong. A ten thousnad big bet loosing streak is not unusal.
B) I have had a ten thousand big bet loosing streak, but its just very very bad luck and I am still beating the game by a Big bet an hour.
C) The game is fixed in same way, and I have been cheated out of my money.
D) I am a losing player.

Well what do you think?

Having said that, I agree with your general point about psychological toughness. People who do not understand the maths are likely to get complexly confused by a hundred big bet loosing or winning streak. Understanding the maths, thats really understanding the maths should sort this problem.

I recently had a 200 big bet loosing run, the thought that the maths was wrong never occurred to me. I don't believe it ever would.

Edit: changed A & B a bit

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, okay. I mean my original question was designed specifically to rule out C and D, though. I think most people, especially gamblers here at 2+2, are going to say B. But if you knew that C and D were impossible, I'm just wondering how much it would take to get somebody to switch to A.

quinn · #6 10-05-2005, 08:09 AM

This is a really good question.

I'm not sure of an answer to your specific question, but maybe this will help:

If I went on a 100 buyin losing streak at the $50+$5 Party SNGs, it is likely that I would never play SNGs again.

I am 99.9% certain that if I went on a 200 buyin losing streak, I would never play poker again.

Saddlepoint · #7 10-05-2005, 08:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a really good question.

I'm not sure of an answer to your specific question, but maybe this will help:

If I went on a 100 buyin losing streak at the $50+$5 Party SNGs, it is likely that I would never play SNGs again.

I am 99.9% certain that if I went on a 200 buyin losing streak, I would never play poker again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your answer.

I don't think it would even take that much for me to quit. I wonder how much it would take to drive out Chip Reese.