Theory of the Game
There is a mathematical way of thinking about the conflict and the cooperation, known as theory of the game. The most quoted statements in this matter come from John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern. The idea has adopted very quickly into economics, politics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, biology, army and statistics.
Theory of the game explains some of the politic controversies, especially historical disputes, where liberals underline optimal efficiency of the market and socialists its injustice. The same theory we can find in poker, bridge and war.
Games are divided into two types. First - where the gains and loses make even - if someone loses somebody else gains. Second - where loses and achievements don't have to be balanced.
The roulette is the first type of the game. It doesn't generate the money but it doesn't destroy it either. The roulette moves the money between the wallets only. A simple player doesn't compete with other players. Their gains don't depend on other players winnings or loses. Although the results are always minus, as the rules privilege the casino. Statistically the player has to loose to support the house financially.
Even though the house always wins there are certain strategies, which guarantee the gains. One of them is a systematical doubling the stake in a game, all the time betting the color. The player bets $1 on red ones. Succeeded wins another $1. Lost should double the bet in the next turn betting red ones again.
If the player has been losing N times: 1 + 2 + 4 + ... M dollars, where M equals 2 N-1. The sum of this set is 2 x M - 1, which makes an entire loss. In the next move the player should double the stake 2xM. If the game is fair, so the color must appear eventually, the player wins 2xM, which is $1 less. Using this strategy continuously helps to win a dollar. The problem of doubling the bet is hidden in the amount of dollars you have. More is better. To survive a series of the previous failures there is 2 N dollars required.
Competing sometime is helpful, but unreasonable can be misleading and destroying. How to avoid the trap? If someone wants to grab a hundred and bets $25 there might be another player who gives $50 to get a hundred for himself. Although the bidding is on and there is still $25 of profit. Investing a hundred to receive a hundred equals zero. No profits, no loses. In some of the cases competition doesn't have much sense. The opponents can bid higher and higher trying to minimize their loses at the end as the money put is higher than the money received. The best thing then is to share the pot while it is still worth to do it and stop competing for the worthless things.
There is a mathematical way of thinking about the conflict and the cooperation, known as theory of the game. The most quoted statements in this matter come from John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern. The idea has adopted very quickly into economics, politics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, biology, army and statistics.
Theory of the game explains some of the politic controversies, especially historical disputes, where liberals underline optimal efficiency of the market and socialists its injustice. The same theory we can find in poker, bridge and war.
Games are divided into two types. First - where the gains and loses make even - if someone loses somebody else gains. Second - where loses and achievements don't have to be balanced.
The roulette is the first type of the game. It doesn't generate the money but it doesn't destroy it either. The roulette moves the money between the wallets only. A simple player doesn't compete with other players. Their gains don't depend on other players winnings or loses. Although the results are always minus, as the rules privilege the casino. Statistically the player has to loose to support the house financially.
Even though the house always wins there are certain strategies, which guarantee the gains. One of them is a systematical doubling the stake in a game, all the time betting the color. The player bets $1 on red ones. Succeeded wins another $1. Lost should double the bet in the next turn betting red ones again.
If the player has been losing N times: 1 + 2 + 4 + ... M dollars, where M equals 2 N-1. The sum of this set is 2 x M - 1, which makes an entire loss. In the next move the player should double the stake 2xM. If the game is fair, so the color must appear eventually, the player wins 2xM, which is $1 less. Using this strategy continuously helps to win a dollar. The problem of doubling the bet is hidden in the amount of dollars you have. More is better. To survive a series of the previous failures there is 2 N dollars required.
Competing sometime is helpful, but unreasonable can be misleading and destroying. How to avoid the trap? If someone wants to grab a hundred and bets $25 there might be another player who gives $50 to get a hundred for himself. Although the bidding is on and there is still $25 of profit. Investing a hundred to receive a hundred equals zero. No profits, no loses. In some of the cases competition doesn't have much sense. The opponents can bid higher and higher trying to minimize their loses at the end as the money put is higher than the money received. The best thing then is to share the pot while it is still worth to do it and stop competing for the worthless things.
