Trading Lessons/Insights From Coin Flipping

Quote from walterjennings:

But by the description of 'the game', we can choose our numbers every game, so they are not random, not separated. Which would mean the game is beatable.

In fact, you could do that strategy but use 2 < X < 99 and then choose the second card to be X+2 or X-2 so there is separation. So that shouldn't make a difference.

And what do you mean 'always select the higher card'? That is a little confusing to me. From my understanding of the game, they are given a known card, and have to guess if that is higher or lower than the unknown card, 'selecting the higher card' doesn't seem to be a meaningful decision for them, when they are limited to guessing 'card2 is higher, card2 is lower'

If you are allowed to choose which number to show first, then this game is beatable. However, I think this is where the instructions are unclear. I think the intent of the game is to show one of the two numbers randomly which then gives the guesser the advantage even if the numbers are together. The advantage gets larger for the guesser the further apart the two numbers are.

What I mean by always selecting the highest card when the random # is between the two numbers, assume the two numbers are 30 and 40. We will also assume that 30 and 40 are both shown first 100 times and that the random # gen will select each number 1-100 once.

The results are as follows:

When 40 is shown first and the random # is 1-40, you keep the 40 for 40 wins and when the random # is 41-100, you switch for 60 losses.

When 30 is shown first and the random # is 1-30, you keep the 30 for 30 losses and when the random # is 31-100, you switch for 70 wins.

The bottom line is you have 110 wins and only 90 losses. This happens because anytime the random # is 31-40 you win regardless of which number is shown first. So you wind up with 20 guaranteed winners and the balance of the 180 trials are split 50-50 for 90 losses and 90+20 winners.

Hope that was clear.

Joe.
 
Quote from u21c3f6:

If you are allowed to choose which number to show first, then this game is beatable. However, I think this is where the instructions are unclear. I think the intent of the game is to show one of the two numbers randomly which then gives the guesser the advantage even if the numbers are together. The advantage gets larger for the guesser the further apart the two numbers are.

What I mean by always selecting the highest card when the random # is between the two numbers, assume the two numbers are 30 and 40. We will also assume that 30 and 40 are both shown first 100 times and that the random # gen will select each number 1-100 once.

The results are as follows:

When 40 is shown first and the random # is 1-40, you keep the 40 for 40 wins and when the random # is 41-100, you switch for 60 losses.

When 30 is shown first and the random # is 1-30, you keep the 30 for 30 losses and when the random # is 31-100, you switch for 70 wins.

The bottom line is you have 110 wins and only 90 losses. This happens because anytime the random # is 31-40 you win regardless of which number is shown first. So you wind up with 20 guaranteed winners and the balance of the 180 trials are split 50-50 for 90 losses and 90+20 winners.

Hope that was clear.

Joe.

That makes sense if the card that is shown is picked at random. But from the poster of the game's message.

"Whether you pick which number to reveal randomly or not doesn't matter. In both cases there is a strategy that brings the other side to a win probability higher than 50%."

And by "keep" I assume you mean, "assign as the high card guess", people seem to throw out random words thats seem to have nothing to do with the problem we are discussion, confusing me to no ends :P
 
Quote from bone:

"Sorry, but I am still failing to see how this can be used to turn a series of coin flip bets into positive expectation"

Bingo.

The obligatory coin flip is an excellent primer for a junior high school statistics exercise but IMHO has no bearing on consistent profitability in trading markets. You can have streaks of heads or tails but in the long run it's a scratch. It is not correct to equate a successful, professional trader as a superior manager of random events. By strategic design, the successful trader has distilled the market into an event predicament he can exploit at an expectation greater than randomness.

I am not aware of any person who successfully makes a living gambling red or black at the roulette wheel - which is analogous to the veritable coin flip. But we are all aware of the professional Black Jack and Poker gamblers who can manage to make a living at it. Superior strategy and a better market with more variables are the difference between the examples.

We have two advantages over the roulette player.

We have access to a wider range of betting instruments (i.e. options) and our random process (the market) has a skew.

The coin-flip system becomes very important for estimating this skew. And options are a way to capture the profit left on the table.

Ninna
 
Quote from nLepwa:

We have two advantages over the roulette player.

We have access to a wider range of betting instruments (i.e. options) and our random process (the market) has a skew.

The coin-flip system becomes very important for estimating this skew. And options are a way to capture the profit left on the table.

Ninna

Could you elaborate a bit more?
 
Quote from masterjaz_99:

N = 2 Surprise
Now, suppose you must decide when to stop and choose between only two slips of paper or two cards. You turn one over, observe a number there and then must judge whether it is larger than the hidden number on the second. The surprising claim, originating with David Blackwell of the University of California, Berkeley, is that you can win at this game more than half the time. Obviously you can win exactly half the time by always stopping with the first number, or always stopping with the second, without even peeking. But to win more than half the time, you must find a way to use information from the first number to decide whether or not to stop. (Readers take comfort: When mathematicians first heard this claim, many of us found it implausible.)

Here is one stopping rule that guarantees winning more than half the time. First, generate a random number R according to a standard Gaussian (bell-shaped) curve by using a computer or other device. Then turn over one of the slips of paper and observe its number. If R is larger than the observed number, continue and turn over the second card. If R is smaller, quit with the number observed on the first card. How can such a simple-minded strategy guarantee a win more than half the time?

If R is smaller than each of the two written numbers, then you win exactly half the time ( p / 2 of the unknown probability p in Figure 4); if it is larger than both, you again win half that time ( q / 2 of q, also in Figure 4). But if R falls between the two written numbers, which it must do with strictly positive probability (since the two numbers are different and the Gaussian distribution assigns positive probability to every interval) then you win all the time. This gives you the edge you need, since p / 2 + q / 2 + 1–p–q is greater than ½, because 1 - p - q is greater than zero. For example, if the two hidden numbers are 1 and ð, this Gaussian method yields a value for p about .8413 and q about .0008, so the probability that it will select the larger number is more than 57 percent.

Of course if the number writer knows this Gaussian strategy, he can make your winnings as close to ½ as he wants by writing numbers that are very close.

If the number writer is not completely free to pick any number, but instead is required to choose an integer in the range {1,2,…,100}, say, then he cannot make your probability of winning arbitrarily close to ½. In this case it also seems obvious that the number-writer would never write a 1, since if you turn over a 1, you will always win by not stopping. But if he never writes a 1, he then would never write a 2 either since he never wrote a 1, and so on ad absurdum . Interested readers are invited to discover for themselves the optimal strategy in this case, and the amount more than ½ one can guarantee to win on the average.

The solution I had in mind when answering Ninna's post is actually different. I am wondering what would be a method that maximizes the edge? The method shown above gives an edge, but it does not discuss whether it is the maximum edge.

My method (if it works) might give the maximum edge, or at least that is the aim. :)

Could you guys think of other ways (or ask your friends or others in forums to find alternative solutions)?
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

I did a study of coin flipping from the perspective of trading. The aim was to gain some (new/alternative/existing) understanding of trading via an analysis of coin flipping. ...
Anything you don't understand may look to you like coin flipping, ... or even worse, like an example of Murphy's Law applied ... :)

Markets are no flipping coins.
 
Quote from nLepwa:

We have two advantages over the roulette player.

We have access to a wider range of betting instruments (i.e. options) and our random process (the market) has a skew.

The coin-flip system becomes very important for estimating this skew. And options are a way to capture the profit left on the table.

Ninna
I completely disagree ... :)

Options are no betting instruments ... Market is not random, and has no skew ... Options are by no means "a way to capture the profit left on the table" ...
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

Could you elaborate a bit more?

The difference between the market skew and normal is basically your profit.

You need to find a way to measure that difference.

Ninna
 
Quote from nLepwa:

Whether you pick which number to reveal randomly or not doesn't matter. In both cases there is a strategy that brings the other side to a win probability higher than 50%.

The "trick" that you described doesn't change this fact.

Ninna

For anyone who is still interested in this problem. I double checked with some other mathies. Turns out our initial intuition was correct, if you allow player A to choose which card to show and they employ the correct numbering strategy, you give them the opportunity to arbitrarily force the possibility of player B guessing correctly to exactly 50%, by literally turning it into a coin flip bet for player B, this making it a losing game for player B.

Phew, thought I didn't understand maths for a second there. *Puts his degree back up on the wall*
 
Not sure why anyone would compare trading to coin-flipping. All you have to do is look at a chart to see that markets trend....
 
Back
Top