Can someone who has access to a precision robot and controlled environment please check; if one applies the same force on the coin in flipping, with it landing on a (soft) surface at the same height it - will it land the same side every time.
You could read the Diaconis paper?
It is paywalled so I can not.
However, I was unaware that they already conducted said experiment. I am now left confused as to why they would not mention such in the abstract, and refer only to natural experiments and second order measurements.
That's amazing, but I guess it won't help when the person can choose the bias? Because according to the study the person can choose the bias by choosing which side start up. So if the person wants tails based on what you've said, they should always 1. Do the first throw starting tails up. 2. If the first one is tails, then they now want to start second one heads up. 3. If the first one is heads, they will want to try…
> That's amazing, but I guess it won't help when the person can choose the bias? Alice writes on a piece of paper whether to use the result from the first or the second coin, Bob flips the coins however he likes, then once there are two different sides of the coins up, Alice turns over the paper and reveals to Bob which coin contains the result. Though I guess that unnecessarily complicates the procedure – maybe Alic…
Suppose Alice needs to take the coin first to herself, to use the aforementioned strategy without intentionally introducing bias, and then using result of that, which would determine whether the first or the second result from Bob would be used. Because otherwise Bob may be able to make psychological "guesses".
This is incredibly puzzling. Is there a minimum number of rotations per coin flip to consider it valid? If looks like the bias was not evenly distributed across people. How did you protect your experiment from skilled bad actors who could influence the data with a few bad/skilled flips? Did strangers on the internet fare any differently than in-person attempts from trusted people?
Why do you think this is puzzling? This bias has been analytically and dynamically predicted for years.
Because I find it counter-intuitive. And because I am not aware of scientific development in this field.
Von Neumann described a very elegant way to get fair results from a biased coin. 1. Flip the coin twice 2. If you get the same result both times, goto 1 3. Now that you have different results for your pair of flips, use the first element of the pair of flips as your result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_coin#Fair_results_from_a_...
I absolutely love that even with a corrupted system you can use properties of the system to ensure just outcomes.
This works only if the bias is constant/independent of the result of the previous flip.
That's amazing, but I guess it won't help when the person can choose the bias? Because according to the study the person can choose the bias by choosing which side start up. So if the person wants tails based on what you've said, they should always 1. Do the first throw starting tails up. 2. If the first one is tails, then they now want to start second one heads up. 3. If the first one is heads, they will want to try…
You can solve this easily by always flipping with the same side (doesn’t matter which) facing up for all flips.
There is skill to coin flipping. You'd need to blind the flipper, either physically blindfold or make it so they don't know which result is the positive outcome ahead of time.
Based my back-testing of stock market, I found a similar conclusion: if a stock rise yesterday, then today the probability of raise > the probability of fall. P(raise) is about 50.1%, P(fall) is about 49.9%. Vice versa. Having this theory means you can't rely on a single bet, you have to bets many many times to make profit from stock market. Even though I knew that, I am still working as a developer, I wish one day I…
> Having this theory means you can't rely on a single bet, you have to bets many many times to make profit from stock market.
If you take into account trading costs, you'll probably lose money this way even if the theory is correct.
>If you bet a dollar on the outcome of a coin toss 1000 times, knowing the starting position of the coin toss would earn you 19$ on average. This is more than the casino advantage for 6-deck blackjack against an optimal player (5$) but less than that for single-zero roulette (27$). This sounds like the plot of a western where a man travels from town to town and gleans a little cash from the local waterhole a little e…
The upshot is that as long as you only stake $1 at a time, you're unlikely to lose more than $50. On the other hand, /if/ you do, you'll have to play for 6000 more flips until you can be fairly certain that you're even again. What's worse is if, after having lost $50, you're down to your last $50, there's almost a 1/5 chance you'll blow all of it trying to recover if you wager $1 each time. If you grow wise and start…
Make a deal with all the banks or systems that can print money that would allow you to take an infinite loan from them. Then just double the bet every time you lose.
If they can print money, why not infinitely as you will always pay it back anyway, so you don't have to worry about introducing inflation. There will always be a point when you can just burn the money that you temporarily introduced.
Based my back-testing of stock market, I found a similar conclusion: if a stock rise yesterday, then today the probability of raise > the probability of fall. P(raise) is about 50.1%, P(fall) is about 49.9%. Vice versa. Having this theory means you can't rely on a single bet, you have to bets many many times to make profit from stock market. Even though I knew that, I am still working as a developer, I wish one day I…
Alert: It's not going to be as simple as this to make money even with large numbers. So don't fret about not having the money and missing some golden opportunity. There are enough actors out there trying to develop complex algorithms to find an edge, and so there wouldn't be any simple edges like this left anywhere as they would be arbitraged away. If there is a simple pattern, it is noticed and traded until the patt…
Also, if you do find an edge, you need to be prepared for what happens when everyone else discovers your arbitrage opportunity, and/or you tap out the potential of it.
A number of failed finance companies have the story: find a legitimate arbitrage opportunity; take on a billion dollars in investment to exploit the opportunity; make bank; other people discover your arbitrage opportunity and jump on; stop making bank; try riskier and riskier investment opportunities to keep it going; engage in outright fraud to keep it going; go bankrupt and/or to jail.