Quote from: TwitchySeal on August 14, 2016, 09:17:00 AM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 14, 2016, 09:08:43 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on August 14, 2016, 08:46:48 AM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 14, 2016, 08:25:17 AM

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won. And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.

Cjmoles thinks that everyone decided to try and win the $350k+ Badgirl jackpot on the right (which nobody ever won) instead of the much smaller Goodgirl Jackpot on the left (which was hit over 100 times)

--snipped unrelated TwitchyTroll trash--

Twitchy, you know I meant to say "Good Girl" instead of "Bad Girl" and your just trying to misrepresent the case again as usual! But, that's beside the point, you can see the numbers, you can look at the game, and you can read the data, then you can ask a friend to explain the data to you if you don't quite understand what you're reading. If you would spend more time trying to be truthful and honest instead of a multi-accounting, lying, photo shopping, scam recruiting, East Coast pro-regulatory shill that talks to himself then maybe you could find a place to play. It's not my fault that you got kicked out of the poker room....it's your own fault. Start trying to be honest and you might find somebody to play with you.

I didn't even notice you mixed them up to be honest.

You're theory is that everyone chooses the option to go for the bigger jackpot and nobody chooses to go for the smaller.

How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) is getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the jackpot that everyone is choosing?

No, that's not my theory. Here, again in quotes, is my point I made earlier:

"The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won. And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen. Once it's chosen, the other jackpot cannot be won. This game is different than the other games because it is not a randomly distributed jackpot but rather a jackpot that is based on human choice which is motivated by non-random factors and incentives. That's why the author concludes, 'the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical.' He's right, it's not 'just random luck' but that's not because the game is crooked, it's the way the game is designed. When those numbers came out, I don't believe he realized that that was the way the game was designed, so of course it's going to look aberrant....if it was any other game then it would have been aberrant. It's not surprising that this game was the only game that demonstrated that astronomically improbable behavior."

And here it is said differently:

If it were a game that followed a RANDOM distribution model then the authors conclusion that "the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical" would be a valid observation. However, it isn't a game that follows a random distribution model so the analysis is invalid. TO BE CLEAR, WHICH JACKPOT IS WON IS NOT A RANDOM EVENT AS ASSUMED, BUT INSTEAD AN EVENT WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY AND COLLECTIVELY DETERMINED BY HUMAN CHOICE MOTIVATED BY THE INCENTIVE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT. It's not a random event so it can't be interpreted as a random event, then juxtaposed into a normal distribution frequency, classified deviant, and still be a sound argument. When he states "the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical," he's right because they weren't random luck at all.