Quote from CoolTraderDude:
![]()
![]()
![]()
You can't do any better because your sample space has doubled.
Bag 1 P(x) = 3/10 Bag 2 P(x) = 3/10
You have 10/10 (100 %) chances to pick 3 beans if you just focus on 1 bag...
If you focus on 2 bags combined then you have P(x) = 6/20 = 3/10.![]()
However, your prob. of picking the red beans drops from 100 % to 50% or 10/20 chances of actually getting the beans or 1/2...
Then your prob. of picking the red beans combined with your chances at picking the red beans drop significantly...
P(A*B) = 1/2*3/10 = 3/20
If you try to pick out of both bags you only have a 15 % chance of picking three beans while if you just pick from 1 bag you have a 100 % chance of picking three beans.
Quote from jeccross:
A valid observation (which applies to both the stocks and the beans) is what are we trying to maximise? Are we trying to guarantee a certain number of magic beans or maximise the expected number of magic beans while carrying the risk we might end up with none (or fewer than we could have guaranteed)?
This depends on our risk tolerance.
Quote from jeccross:
Not true though. Pick from bag 1 until you get 3 magic beans, then pick from bag 2.
You guarantee 3 magic beans (if you're unlucky enough to pick a magic bean as the last one out of 10) and have a chance of more than 3.
This is clearly better then ignoring the second bag or picking randomly.
A valid observation (which applies to both the stocks and the beans) is what are we trying to maximise? Are we trying to guarantee a certain number of magic beans or maximise the expected number of magic beans while carrying the risk we might end up with none (or fewer than we could have guaranteed)?
This depends on our risk tolerance.
Quote from intradaybill:
Consider one bag:
Pick 10: 3 magic beans
Pick 9: 2 or 3 beans
Pick 8: 1, 2 or 3 beans
Pick 7: 0,1,2, or 3 beans
Pick 6: 0,1,2, or 3 beans
Pick 5: 0,1,2, or 3 beans
Pick 4: 0,1,2 or 3 beans
Pick 3:0,1,2, or 3 beans
Pick 2: 0,1,2 beans
Pick 1:0,1 beans
Pick 0: 0 beans
The expectation is maximum for the following combinations:
7 and 3
6 and 4
5 and 5
in this case the expectation is:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6
These are the combinations that can offer you the maximum 6 magic beans at the risk of getting 0 beans.
If you want to play safe, you pick 10 from one bag but you have only 3 beans.
So this is an incomplete problem. You have to specify the risk aversion profile.
If risk aversion is not to have less than 2 magic beans then you have the following combinations:
10,0
9,1
If 1 is minimum then:
10,0
9,1
8,2
So the answer should depend on the constraint of minimum number of magic beans.
This is a boundary value constraint problem. Otherwise, it is incomplete.

Quote from jeccross:
Not true though. Pick from bag 1 until you get 3 magic beans, then pick from bag 2.
You guarantee 3 magic beans (if you're unlucky enough to pick a magic bean as the last one out of 10) and have a chance of more than 3.
This is clearly better then ignoring the second bag or picking randomly.
A valid observation (which applies to both the stocks and the beans) is what are we trying to maximise? Are we trying to guarantee a certain number of magic beans or maximise the expected number of magic beans while carrying the risk we might end up with none (or fewer than we could have guaranteed)?
This depends on our risk tolerance.
