Judging the outcome of a probability based decision

[AutSider]

Suppose the gambling is done by means of a computer game specifically designed for this. If a person bets and has a 10% chance of losing, but wins, can his decision be said to be more rational than the decision of a person with a 90% chance of winning who loses, all other things equal?

It is obvious to me that it can’t be, if the case really is that we know something has a 10% chance of occurring and something else has a 90% chance of occurring, of course it is more rational to bet on the thing with a 90% chance of occurring (again, all other things equal).

And yet it would seem a bit absurd to tell somebody who was correct that he should have picked the choice that is now revealed to be wrong because it was supposedly the rational thing to do.

I think this is because when we assess probabilities we can only take into account information available to us, so when somebody wins despite low probability to do so we may assume that they were aware of some factors we weren’t aware of that allowed them to determine the outcome. But in this case the outcome is determined by a computer, so unless they were somehow aware of the inner workings of the hardware on a, what, atomic or sub-atomic level (?) it is obvious they had no way to predict it, so this cannot be used as an excuse.

So the question remains - how come we view it as absurd? Or maybe somebody doesn’t, maybe even in general people don’t and it’s only me.

And actually, I only see it as absurd instinctively, but I think on a rational level when I am aware of all the factors, it is not absurd at all.

Perhaps our instincts evolved to see such things as absurd because when it comes to our mind judging probabilities when it comes to natural processes, without numbers, it may be the case that indeed we neglect to perceive some factors that somebody else may have, so we presume that if they succeeded at something and somebody else didn’t, it is because of that awareness. And generally, I think it is the case.

Just some random thoughts…

EDIT: You can move this in Philosophy or Science and Math, I accidentally posted it here.

[Pandora]

Suppose the gambling is done by means of a computer game specifically designed for this. If a person bets and has a 10% chance of losing, but wins, can his decision be said to be more rational than the decision of a person with a 90% chance of winning who loses, all other things equal?

It is obvious to me that it can’t be, if the case really is that we know something has a 10% chance of occurring and something else has a 90% chance of occurring, of course it is more rational to bet on the thing with a 90% chance of occurring (again, all other things equal).

Just to clarify, did you mean to say 10% chance of winning there?

Because it seems to me that engaging in a bet where 10% of losing (which is 90% of winning) and winning is indeed more probable (rational) than engaging in a bet where a person loses in a 90% win chance probability. This considering you are figuring in at least 10 bets into your plan.

So the question remains - how come we view it as absurd? Or maybe somebody doesn’t, maybe even in general people don’t and it’s only me.

I think when people win at times when odds are against them, they lose track of overall picture, or long-term perspective. Probably, it has to do with emotions, like greed, or wish full thinking. When people win against odds they feel lucky, and luck is often treated as an outside extra factor.

Perhaps our instincts evolved to see such things as absurd because when it comes to our mind judging probabilities when it comes to natural processes, without numbers, it may be the case that indeed we neglect to perceive some factors that somebody else may have, so we presume that if they succeeded at something and somebody else didn’t, it is because of that awareness. And generally, I think it is the case.

But it could be a matter of luck also, such as being at the right place, at the right time, for example. I agree that there are people who are more perceptive, but on the other side of spectrum too, if you notice, you have people who choose to assign exceptional abilities to others to such a degree that they end up with conspiracy theories up to UFOs and aliens being involved.

[Pandora]

@AutSider

But in this case the outcome is determined by a computer, so unless they were somehow aware of the inner workings of the hardware on a, what, atomic or sub-atomic level (?) it is obvious they had no way to predict it, so this cannot be used as an excuse.

I wondering how probabilities will be affected by quantum computers.

[jsmith17]

oh hi

im autsiders twin brother in real life and i am also interested in this topic

yes, he meant a person who has a 10% chance of winning.

luck is the word used for unknown or impossible to calculate factors. and yes, it may be that somebody succeeded because they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, but generally natural laws don’t favor anybody, so if somebody consistently fails it is very likely that’s their own fault.