[qsort]

I don't agree, I think he was just plain wrong.

Unlike most people here I actually think questions like this are a decent way to see how people think. I would expect people with math/stats/cs background to be able to at least start the conversation about this problem.

However when you hide hypotheses or add your own BS constraints as a gotcha without explicitly stating them is where you lose me.

If the question is "would you play this game" the reasonable mathematical translation is "determine if the expected value is greater than zero". If you're going to talk about tail risk you need to specify utility functions (possibly asymmetric for the two players!) and you need to explicitly say that's what you mean.

[nighthawk454]

> If the question is "would you play this game" the reasonable mathematical translation is "determine if the expected value is greater than zero".

Not really! And that may be the point of the question. It's not testing if you can pattern match to plausible CS concepts.

If you get one play, and the goal is to win, do you take the chance? The whole question is about the difference in likelihood in the limit (expected value, infinite plays) and what is a likely outcome _of one round_.

[krisoft]

> It's not testing if you can pattern match to plausible CS concepts.

But thats a problem then, isn’t it?

Because if you abandon that framework there are many other possible frameworks to think in.

You say the question is about the difference in likelihood in the limit (expected value, infinite plays) and what is a likely outcome _of one round_. (Which may I say is just an other plausible CS concept you pattern matched.)

One might also say that you should play the game because even if you are playing like a chump and has absolutely the worst luck you are at max out of pocket of a 100 dollar. A real hustler can turn a personal meeting with Balmer into much more lucrative deal and earn back that hundred dollar million-fold that way.

Or you could say that the answer is no, because Balmer stinks and it would be ruinous to your personal reputation to be seen with him.

Or you could say “yes” because you know you don’t have cash at all. So even if he wins good luck trying to squeeze his reward out of you.

Or you could say “yes”, because while you distract Balmer with this inane game your associate will lift his valet and car keys.

Or you could say yes because what is the worst which can happen? You will spend a bit of a money, and have an awesome story to tell later.

Or you can answer no, because clearly a rich businessman does not have your best interest in his mind, so there must be some trap.

So this is what happens when you abandon the framework to answer the question as a plausible CS concept. You open the door to all these other alternative frameworks and more.

[lern_too_spel]

If it were about winning or losing that round, there wouldn't be so many different monetary values associated with each outcome. Instead, each outcome would be win, lose, or draw. Because there are monetary values, we have to decide if it's a good bet. If somebody offers me a chance to wager $1 on the outcome of a die roll where the payoff for choosing correctly is $10, I will do it, even though it's more likely that I will lose than win.