# re: observation selection effects

From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:35:34 +1000

Here is a similar paradox to the traffic lane example:

In the new casino game called Flip-Flop, an odd number of players pay \$1
each to gather in individual cubicles and flip a coin (so no player can
see what another player is doing). The game organisers tally up the
results, and the result which is in the minority is said to be the
Winning Flip, while the minority result is said to be the Losing Flip.
For example, if there are 101 players and of these 53 flip heads while
48 flip tails, tails is the Winning Flip and heads is the Losing Flip.
Before the result of the tally is announced, each player must commit to
either keep the result of their original coin flip, whether heads or
tails, or switch to the opposite result. The casino then announces what
the Winning Flip was, and players whose final result (however it was
obtained) corresponds with this are paid \$2, while the rest get nothing.

The question now: is there anything to be gained by switching at the
last step of this game? From the point of view of typical player, it
would seem that there is not: the Winning Flip is as likely to be heads
as tails, and if he played the game repeatedly over time, he should
expect to break even, whether he switches in the final step or not. On
the other hand, it seems clear that if nobody switches, the casino is
ahead, while if everbody switches, the players are ahead; so switching
would seem to be a winning strategy for the players. This latter result
is not due to any cooperation effect, as only those players who switch
get the improved (on average) outcome.

Stathis Papaioannou
Received on Sat Oct 09 2004 - 10:37:38 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST