Thanks, yeah I've discussed with Ole a bit. That coin toss setup (+50% heads, -40% tails) is not in any way comparable to all tosses happening at once, with equal $ bets on each. Each toss is dependent on all previous results (wealth). Each toss has a different initial condition. Consecutive tosses with identical $ bets would be a break-even deal, just like the simultaneous tosses.
Or to say it another way, the results are because of how the bet is designed, not (just) the consecutiveness. "Ergodicity" just obfuscates that fairly simple insight IMO.
Also not sure how that bet setup relates to this poker game. ?
Isn't that only true until the casino goes bankrupt? And in any infinitely long game, every casino goes bankrupt.
Maybe the Wild West version of this analogy is in a poker game where you're the only one with the gun, (win or lose) you'll get all the money, unless you decide to let the suckers have an even break.
https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2023/08/29/for-to-withhold-is-to-perish/
Thanks, yeah I've discussed with Ole a bit. That coin toss setup (+50% heads, -40% tails) is not in any way comparable to all tosses happening at once, with equal $ bets on each. Each toss is dependent on all previous results (wealth). Each toss has a different initial condition. Consecutive tosses with identical $ bets would be a break-even deal, just like the simultaneous tosses.
Or to say it another way, the results are because of how the bet is designed, not (just) the consecutiveness. "Ergodicity" just obfuscates that fairly simple insight IMO.
Also not sure how that bet setup relates to this poker game. ?
Isn't that only true until the casino goes bankrupt? And in any infinitely long game, every casino goes bankrupt.
Maybe the Wild West version of this analogy is in a poker game where you're the only one with the gun, (win or lose) you'll get all the money, unless you decide to let the suckers have an even break.