|
|
Tue, Nov. 10th, 2009, 01:23 pm
 what did this packaging house? first person to guess correctly wins their choice of: a) video of jen using the item b) video of me using the item c) a promise to never, ever, EVER post of a video of me using the item
i! am changing! my band name! to! http://www.sharyhasherquals.com/with....! ....brand! new! music! but! same! reliable! webpage font! and! the familiar! style! of! shitty! ballpoint-pen-on-scrap-paper! cover art!
estimated probability of winning the season: ( spoilers )
this post bridges two of my interests: statistics/probability and the tv show top chef. specifically, i wondered "how small would the quickfire cash prize have to have been for kevin to correctly choose immunity instead of the money?" conclusion: about $2800 or less. also, i estimate that kevin has a 37% chance of winning this season. jennifer and michael each have about 17% chance. ash has less than a 1% chance. though if i were to bet on it, i would flatten the probabilities because there's always a chance of someone getting sick or cutting off their finger, or there will be a challenge where they spin a roulette wheel and whoever gets 00 has to make a dish with fish poop or whatever. for those unfamiliar with top chef, wikipedia explains the format nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_chef#Basic_formatsome (but by no means all) assumptions in my calculations: - only the top prizes are considered. in other words, i place no value on air time, and no value on prizes won in any challenge except the final - $1 merchandise = $1 cash - the probability of a chef winning or losing is unaffected by team challenges. (generally speaking, top chef judges are harsh on the leaders of team challenges, and strong chefs tend to take the lead (and weaker chefs tend to defer)). - i discounted the possibility of contestants winning immunity in future episodes. i don't think immunity will be given out much longer, and those who win immunity tend to be the ones who need it the least. i sought to answer the following questions: - what is the probability of kevin making the worst dish in the second round? - what is the probability of kevin winning the entire competition if he survives this episode? for example, let's say the probability of kevin winning this season is 20%. then his "expected value" is 20% of $250,000 (sum of cash and merchandise) = $50000. let's say the probability of kevin being eliminated in the second round is 8%. that means there is a 8% chance that he will lose a 20% chance of winning $250,000 = 0.08 * 0.20 * $250,000 = $4,000. that means that, with these assumptions, the value of immunity would be worth about $4,000 to kevin. but what are the real percentages? no one knows for sure, but here are my best guesses, based on how contestants have performed in previous challenges. (bullshitty technical notes for stats folks: i assigned some arbitrary point values to each outcome in previous episodes to calculate a power rating for each contestant. i assigned to each contestant a random variable using a beta distribution where alpha = 2, and beta = [conversion of power rating]. i wrote a simulator in python to play out a hundred thousand seasons.) estimated probability of each contestant being eliminated in the most recent episode (assuming no immunity): kevin 3% jennifer 5% michael 5% bryan 8% mike 9% eli 9% ashley 12%* robin 13% laurine 17% ash 20% estimated probability of each contestant winning this season: kevin 37% jennifer 17.5% michael 17% bryan 8% mike 6% eli 6% ashley 3.5%* robin 2.5% laurine 1.5% ash 1% *--ashley was eliminated in this episode, but of course we didn't know that was going to happen until it happened. the amount that each person would be willing to pay/give up for immunity. ie, any amount more than this, they should take the money and give up immunity: kevin $2775 jennifer $2188 michael $2125 bryan $1600 mike $1350 eli $1350 ashley $1050 laurine $637 ash $500 an explanation: my calculations say that, given the choice between immunity and (only) $501, ash should take the cash, even though he is comparatively likely to be eliminated this episode. why? because even if he survives this episode, he is very unlikely to win the season. so he may as well take whatever cash is being offered to him. and there goes a sunday afternoon i'll never get back!
me and tabla are solidly in the honeymoon phase...and i mean the fresh, exploratory honeymoon of a marriage arranged by wise and loving indian parents, not the perfunctory honeymoon after an inertial 10-year dating period and a begrudging proposal. i look forward to practicing (which must be scheduled between baby naps and early bedtime), and have on multiple occasions played so long and hard that my hands dried up, cracked, and bled. tabla is one of those easy hobbies, like cocktails, piano, or porn collecting, in that, while mastery requires years-long commitment, immediate benefits are reapable. compare this with, say, snowboarding, or the violin, where it is a gauntlet of misery (if not for yourself then the people around you) until some rudimentary techniques are acquired. now, i have no doubt that to the trained ear my tabla strokes sound like the hamfist table-pounding tantrum of a retarded fat boy clamoring for his second helping of pie. but benefits reaped in the shroud of ignorance and artlessness are still benefits. whereas there is no shroud opaque enough to obscure the pain of smashing your face into muddy ice, or feral male cats visiting your house for a booty call. all that said, it's interesting to have taken on a hobby for which i have no goal. in that mindset i can more easily focus on, and enjoy, technique, experimentation, process, etc., without the usual fever of impatience. i was thinking of naming the little drum 'lahiri', as i've been reading ' interpreter of maladies'. yeah. i got bengali fever up in this muh.
from the upcoming season of the amazing race: Jessica, who describes herself as loyal and spirited, is a travel and lifestyle editor accustomed to being a creative, quick thinker, which will definitely be useful on the Race. Coming from a large Colombian family, Jessica has learned the importance of teamwork. She enjoys photography and being physically and mentally challenged. and for you poker starfuckers:
Maria and Tiffany
Biography
Maria Ho (26); Tiffany Michelle (25)
Hometown: Arcadia, Calif./ Los Angeles
Occupation: Professional Poker Players
Relationship: Professional Poker Players
These two female professional poker players have been best friends for three years, and were also the last women standing in the World Series of Poker Championship Event in 2007 and 2008. From Vegas to Monte Carlo, the two have competed against the toughest fields across the world and hold their own playing for high stakes in a male-dominated sport.
the wife sent me this, which led me to this.
i heard about a bet some crazy cats at bellagio had going. bet is: what are the odds that a randomly set chinese poker hand is valid? (obv assuming the number of cards in each sub-hand is correct) related question, given two random variables x and y, is there a relatively easy method of estimating the probability of x > y, assuming you know the distributions of x and y? for example, if x is a six-sided die and y is a twenty-sided die. or maybe x is d6 and y is 2d6. related question, is there a relatively easy method of estimating the value of an option? in other words, let's say x is a random variable with a range of -10 to +3. y is a function of x, where y=x when x>0, otherwise y=0. if x's distribution is uniform, the calculation is trivial. but what if the distribution is normal (and the range is -3/+3 standard deviations). or something else. ... in a lingering lapse of judgement, i decided to take up the tabla. lessons start monday. ... i'm also working on a new (short) set of (short) songs under a new name. because undersupervised is a washed-up sellout has-been. check that expiration date, man.
i remembered a story a friend told me about a class he took in which the students took part in a stock-picking contest. this was something the prof did every year, and, every year, the winning strategy had more to do with variance than ev. i was also thinking about this because ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) vizslas_r00l and i were revisiting some of our (mostly my) early usenet contributions and i was shocked at the in(s)anity of them. (the revisiting came about because i reminisced about the time i posted an outlandish claim to rec.gambling backed by formulas that looked complicated but were completely made up, and no one had the balls to call bullshit.) it occurred to me that my social strategies/coping mechanisms are deeply rooted in class-clown-attention-whoreism, that is, i'm willing to act like the craziest motherfucker in the room. exhibit a (really z by this point), early rec.gambling activity. but eventually people like mark stantz and zorakrezo showed up and, just like when i started attending idyllwild arts academy, i realized that i could not outcrazy these crazies, and had to temper my tack. this is probably textbook behavioral psychology, but it is worth pointing out that this strategy yielded fruit. most of my current set of friends (including my wife) are a direct or indirect result of the kooky, overly self assured, antagonistic, profane, vulgar, egotistical shit i wrote on r.g. or irc. though it's possible i could have done better with a more subdued strategy, from this vantage point, i rate that as unlikely. but who knows. clearly i have no idea how the world really works.
you're in a tournament with x people (lets say x is at least 10), assume no one is colluding and/or the amount of collusion is trivial. each player is allowed to make a single bet that has a payout of y for 1, probability of winning 1/y. each player can (secretly) choose any y for their bet. the winner of the tournament is the player with the most money after the bets have been resolved.
what's the best strategy?
a couple months ago, i played "the game of life" for the first time in perhaps ever. (the game contained references to stuff like SUVs, which made me wonder what other changes have been implemented throughout the years. as always, wikipedia explains it all for you.) this was at the home of one of jp's lifelong friends, with her three kids (9, 11, 13). i was surprised how strategic TGOL is. yes, there is a lot of luck, there are some aspects of the game that deviate greatly from reality, and there's a stink of propaganda, albeit of the aimless, aphilosophical sort. but there are plenty of opportunities for good decision-making. of course, i had my own agenda. in almost every household, including the one in which i was raised, for any particular game there's a strategic canon such that the game is reduced to a single path of the "right" way of playing, and the outcome is determined by whoever happens to move down that path with the most fortuitous of die rolls. my agenda was to ascertain local canon, and to win (or at least perform well) despite bucking it. in this household, some of the tenets included: - always go to college - always buy the most expensive house - always buy insurance - never buy stock (i didn't even know that stocks existed until the end of the game. which is too bad because in a many-playered game, stocks are an incredible value. the value is much smaller (and may be negative) in a short-handed game, which may explain the implementation of the tenet.) so, i skipped college and bought a ramshackle shithole. in addition to these deviations, i: - got married to another dude - filled my car with girls ("adopted chinese orphans") - bought insurance, but pointed out that i did so because the game encouraged rampant insurance fraud i might have gone too far with these subversions. in any case, as a thank-you gift (doubling as an unspoken "sorry im such an asshole" gift) i sent them copies of ticket to ride and lost cities. tonight jp and i pulled down a game she liked playing with her cousin called ' this game is bonkers!' check out the groovalicious disco style: 
yes, we seized every opportunity to sing the sesame street pinball song as we moved about the board.
(the gist of the game: you roll dice, you move your marker, you play one of your four action cards (usually displacing your marker either forward or backward, but sometimes dictating a non-linear movement), you draw another action card. the action card is assigned to the space you just landed; anyone landing on that space on a future turn takes the action on that card. the game board is a circular track with some spaces marked as "score [one point]" and one space marked "lose [one point]".)
this game felt lazily developed. scoring and penalty areas seemed haphazardly assigned, with no consideration for game play. there was a preponderance of cards whose main function was to induce chaos, and others that were devastatingly powerful. this is all to say that it's no surprise that young jp enjoyed it so much. i'm sure young tyler would have, too.
but as with TGOL, TGIB was not completely devoid of strategy. as with almost any game that uses two dice, you can seek out positions which maximize the value of your 7s. there is also an element of chicken; each player has one opportunity per game to send an opponent to the cesspit. jp and i fucked this one up pretty bad by exercising this option way too early.
i think the game could be vastly improved by allowing placement of the action cards ANYWHERE on the track EXCEPT the space you just landed on. so you could use action cards to help you, or to hurt your opponent.
that is always the dilemma, whether you are living life, or are fucking bonkers.
coverage of 'the marriage problem' or 'the secretary problem' cycles its way through online nerderati publications every so often. i've seen two references to it in the past few weeks, so it must be making its rounds again. the solution to the original puzzle is interesting, but the solution to the modified game where the selector is trying to maximize ev, as opposed to maximizing probability of finding the best applicant, is more applicable (and, sadly, less mentioned). in both games, there is a point n where the selector goes from "interviewing applicants for the purpose of collecting data and no intent on selecting" and goes to "interviewing applicants with the intent of selecting the next applicant who is the best applicant yet." in the original game (maximize probability of finding the best applicant) n is about 37% of the population. in the modified game (maximize ev), n is the square root of the population. but is this instructive enough? here are some ideas on how i'd improve the model: a) the selector can attempt to return to previous applicants with some probability of success b) the selector can set a baseline happiness value, ie, the value of being unmarried b2) some applicants can have values smaller than the baseline, eg, negative values b3) the selector need not choose any applicant c) the selector has access to non-applicant data. ie, people who are unavailable for whatever reason, but from whom you can still learn things. for example, family members, people out of the desired age range, people already in relationships (tho maybe these could be considered applicants who might be available in the future) ...i often wonder why people don't take dating/relationships/searching more seriously before they get married. (myself included, i got far luckier than i deserved given how little effort i put in.) actually, i don't really wonder (people are timid, lazy, confused, etc.) its more that i think it's a shame. there's enormous value in making a good decision here. its almost certainly worth (say) at least a year of one's salary--but how many people actually put forth a year's worth of effort towards mate seeking? (not to be confused with sex-seeking) some but not many. not enough. (or is it merely that there can be enormous variance in outcomes? the two things are not the same; ie, sometimes you get lucky and things work out better than anyone could have guessed, and vice versa. sometimes because people have hidden qualities, and sometimes because people's qualities change over time in unpredictable ways. is it really possible to make a good decision, or is there too much luck?)
mashup artists and djs:regular musicians::people who converse in movie quotes and ad jingles:regular people::dogs that eat cat poop:cats
agree?
baseline probability you are a racist: 40% "some of my best friends are black": 56% [1] "what do you mean? how can someone who has black friends be racist?": 64% " i'm not racist": 80% "i'm not racist, but...": 100% [1] probability that those "best friends" would say YOU are one of THEIR best friends: 8%
for as long as i've been riding bart (pretty much my entire life), i've been terrorized by the notion of being crushed by the turnstile gate.
well today it finally happened! and i didn't die! or cry in front of a girl!
(yes, it is 'obvious' that the gate wouldn't shut with enough force to hurt anyone, but it's hard to jettison such deeply inset fancies, especially when ones friends are eager to disseminate urban legends about machine-malfunction-related amputations and disembowelments)
los angeles, ca - michael jackson, 50, died today in los angeles, while undergoing a white heart transplant. friends close to the king of pop say he had recently expressed a desire to experience more condescension and disgust towards himself.
related stories:
* intermittent blogger writes fake news story, finds himself amusing, tells andrewhime to suck it
berkeley, ca. - a 37-year-old man was found dead in his backyard by his wife, who had returned from a walk with their infant son. cause of death is suspected to be fractured skull, multiple lacerations, or punctured lung.
at the time of death the man was wearing flip-flops, one of which was broken, and clutching four meyer lemons.
"he appeared to have taken the lemons from a neighbor's tree," reported BPD sgt. hanhauser, "and upon re-entry into his backyard, failed to properly negotiate the dividing wall and rose bushes. had he dropped the lemons he might have broken his fall with his hands or arms, instead of his face."
a friend of the family, who was the last to communicate with the man, reported that the deceased had given no indication of depression or anxiety, only that his final words were simply "brb am gonna run out to the backyard TO POOP"
related stories:
* alcohol-related farming accidents on the rise
* berkeley parents outraged over use of gender-specific pronoun
* arriba! meyer lemons the secret to a muy picante ceviche
|
