Bet Blogger To bet or not to bet

14May/101

Why Ehrlich lost in Simon-Ehrlich wager

According to Paul Ehrlich's website:

In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that humanity would never run out of anything... Paul and the other scientists knew that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems... Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late 1980...[1]

It's not clear if Ehrlich consulted with economists. If he had, the flaw in using commodity prices as the best way to understand biophysical limits might have become obvious. Many economists understand the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology with respect to commodity prices. For example, in the absence of any new technologies, copper prices would indeed be expected to increase as growing economies demanded more copper to meet the needs of expanding communications networks and plumbing infrastructure. Technological changes mitigated much of this expected demand as fiber optics replaced copper wire networks and various plastics replaced the once ubiquitous copper pipes throughout the construction industry.

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in absolute terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms,[1][2] with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half. So, per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). The prices of all five metals increased between 1950 and 1975, but Ehrlich believes three of the five went down during the 1980s because of the price of oil doubling in 1979, and because of a worldwide recession in the early 1980s.

Yet, it is significant that, according to an article in Wired:

All of [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been decisively overturned by events. Ehrlich was wrong about higher natural resource prices, about "famines of unbelievable proportions" occurring by 1975, about "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s and '80s, about the world "entering a genuine age of scarcity." In 1990, for his having promoted "greater public understanding of environmental problems," Ehrlich received a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award." [Simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.[3]

Exponential population growth cannot continue indefinitely for any species, whether it exists as microbes in a petri dish, wild salmon at sea, caribou in the taiga, or a global human society. However, world population is no longer growing exponentially; it has been decelerating for the last half century or so, and UN projections show that it may actually decline after 2040.[4][5]

Simon offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and to use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred. Ehrlich countered with a challenge to bet that temperatures would increase in the future.[1] The two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager before Simon died.

Inflation-adjusted price movements of the commodities in the wager between Simon and Ehrlich may be seen in the larger 1950–2002 context in the following chart. Prices for these five commodities were generally rising from 1960 up until 1978, and generally falling thereafter.[6]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Center for Conservation biology". Stanford.edu. 2005-03-16.
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ Regis, Ed (February 1997). "The Doomslayer". Wired 5 (2).
  4. ^ Population Division, UNDESA (2004). World Population to 2300. New York: United Nations.
  5. ^ Cobb, Loren (October 2006). "Population Implosion". The Quaker Economist 6 (#149).
  6. ^ Kelly, Thomas D; Matos, Grecia R (2005). "Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States". U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140. U.S. Geological Survey.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Share
6May/100

United Kingdom gambling industry

Traditionally, bookmakers have been located at the racecourse, but improved TV coverage and modernisation of the law have allowed betting in shops and casinos in most countries. In the UK, on-track bookies still mark up the odds on boards beside the race course and use tic-tac or mobile telephones to communicate the odds between their staff and to other bookies, but, with the modernisation of United Kingdom Bookmaking laws, online and high street gambling are at an all-time high, with a so-called Super Casino having been planned for construction in Manchester prior to the government announcing that this plan had been scrapped on 26 February 2008.

In 1961, Harold Macmillan's Conservative Government legalised betting shops and tough measures were enacted to ensure that bookmakers remained honest. A large and respectable industry has grown since. At one time there were over 15,000 betting shops in the UK. Now, through consolidation, they have been reduced to about 8,500. Currently there are four major "high street" bookmakers in the United Kingdom: William Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral, and state-owned ToteSport, with Sky Bet, Bet24, Betfred, Victor Chandler, Stan James, Sportingbet, Mansion and Bet365, rapidly emerging, in terms of turnover and event sponsorship.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Share
2May/100

Labouchère system

The Labouchère system, also called the cancellation system or split martingale, is a gambling strategy used in roulette. The user of such a strategy decides before playing how much money they want to win, and writes down a list of positive numbers that sum to the predetermined amount. With each bet, the player stakes an amount equal to the sum of the first and last numbers on the list. If only one number remains, that number is the amount of the stake. If bet is successful, the two amounts are removed from the list. If the bet is unsuccessful, the amount lost is appended to the end of the list. This process continues until either the list is completely crossed out, at which point the desired amount of money has been won, or until the player runs out of money to wager.[1]

The theory behind this strategy is that since the player is crossing two numbers off of the list (win) for every number added (loss) that the player can complete the list, (crossing out all numbers) thereby winning the desired amount even though the player does not need to win as much as expected for this to occur.

It should be mentioned that the Labouchere System is meant to be applied to even money Roulette propositions such as Even/Odd, Red/Black or 1-18/19-36. When any of these bets are made in the game of Roulette, a spin resulting in a, "0," or, "00," results in a loss, so even though the payout is even money, the odds are clearly not 50/50. The Labouchere System attempts to offset these odds.

If a player were to play any one of the above propositions, there are eighteen individual results which result in a win for that player and twenty individual results that result in a loss for that player. The player has an 18/38 chance of success betting any of the above propositions, which is around 47.37%.

Theoretically, because the player is canceling out two numbers on the list for every win, and adding only one number for every loss, the player needs to have his proposition come at least 33.34% to eventually complete the list. For example, if the list starts with seven numbers and the player wins five times and loses three (62.5% winning percentage) the list is completed and the player wins the desired amount, if the list starts with seven numbers and the player wins 43,600 times and loses 87,193 times (33.34% winning percentage) the list completes and the player wins.

A formula to understand this is as follows:

     Where x = Number of Wins
     y = Number of Losses
     Z = Numbers Originally on the List

When

     ( y + z ) / 2 ≤ X

The result is the list being completed.

Assuming a player bets nothing but black (red/black proposition) and black can be expected to hit 47.37% of the time, but the system only requires that it hit 33.34% of the time, it can be said that black only need hit approximately 70.38% of the time (33.34/47.37) it can generally be expected to in order for the system to prevail.

An obvious downfall to the system is bankroll, because the more losses sustained by the player, the greater the amount being bet on each turn (as well as the greater the amount lost overall) is. Consider the following list:

10 10 20 20 20 10 10

If a player were to bet black and lose four times in a row, the amounts bet would be: $20, $30, $40, and $50. By taking these four consecutive losses, the player has already lost $140 and is betting $60 more on the next bet. Consecutive losses, or an inordinate amount of losses to wins can also cause table limits to come into play.

Occasionally, a player following this system will come to a point where he can no longer make the next bet as demanded by the system due to table limits. One work-around for this problem is simply to move to a higher limit table, or a player can take the next number that should be bet, divide it by two and simply add it to the list twice. The problem with the latter option is that every time a player commits such a play, it will infinitesimally increase the percentage of spins a player must win to complete the system. The reason this is so is because the player is adding two numbers (which both will be crossed out in the event of wins) where only one loss was sustained.

To prove this, if a player were to play the Labouchere System the same way with the exception being that the player always added half of the wager lost to the bottom of the list twice for every wager lost where:

    x = Number of Wins
    y = Number of Losses
    Z = Numbers Originally on the List

When:

    y + (z/2) ≤ x

The result is the list being completed.

The player would actually have to win in excess of 50% of the time (the actual percentage of wins necessary, given x and y, being dependent on z) in order to complete the list, or more than the player could actually be expected to win.

References

  1. ^ Burrell, Brian. Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math. Merriam-Webster.
  • Tijms, Henk (2004). "Probabilities in everyday life". Understanding probability: chance rules in everyday life. Cambridge University Press. pp. 91–93. ISBN 0-521-54036-4.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Share