tBlog - Taboo Monkey Blue Blog: Writing on Writing

Taboo's Free Will Versus the Sports Book Paradox

Taboo's critical literary discussions about Ernest Hemingway, Hermann Hesse, T.S. Eliot, Flannery O'Connor, Franz Kafka, and many other authors. Links to full story texts and critical discussions.


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 June
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 October
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 November
2005 October
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December

My Links
Home
TaBoo's Ezine Navigator
The Greatest Maze
Sudoku Tips and Tricks
Joe User
The Phallic Suggestion

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



Taboo's Free Will Versus the Sports Book Paradox
04.01.06 (12:29 pm)   [edit]

Note: I encountered a slightly different variation on this riddle once again in Labyrinths of Reason, by William Poundstone. Anyone with the slightest interest in logic and the concept of paradox should read it.

At Amazon: Labyrinths of Reason

A man by the name of Bernard Lowell, at the age of twenty, moved from his home in a small town in Ohio to Las Vegas, Nevada. He was fascinated by games of chance, and by the people who thought they could beat these games.

Games like craps and roulette held little interest for him. He played some poker and made some money, but he quickly lost interest.

Instead, he gravitated toward the sports book, and began placing wagers on baseball, basketball, and football.

Before long, the Las Vegas community became aware of the "Bernard Lowell" phenomenon. Bernard Lowell was making money: the other sharks watched him carefully, and determined that, for whatever reason, this man was predicting nine out of ten games correctly!

Month after month, Las Vegas authorities studied this man; and month after month, Lowell's winning percentage remained more or less constant. Bookies sent private detectives to follow him, hoping to uncover some fix, some cheat to his method. But they found nothing. Bernard Lowell, apparently, was legit.

Ten years after he first arrived in Las Vegas, Mr. Lowell had amassed a terrific fortune. He was famous across the country--everywhere, even among non-gambling citizens. His name was synonymous with gold, with magic.

Lowell became so famous that Jay Leno invited Mr. Lowell on to his show, on precisely the exact day of Lowell's ten-year sports betting anniversary. After joking about this and that, Jay finally asks the question that everyone has wanted to ask him for years.

"Tell me, Bernie," Jay says. "How do you really do it?"

Bernard Lowell is silent for a moment. Finally he says, "All right. I'll tell you. Not that it matters, because my track record has been proven, proven to be 90% over many years of documented betting. Still, I suspect your audience will not not believe me. Nevertheless, the answer is this: I see it."

Jay scratches his noble chin. "Er, you see it?"

"Yes. It's as if I get a blurry version of ESPN Sports Center running across my eyeballs when I consider a game."

"Wowie, Bernie. ESPN or ESP? Then tell me: Why do you ever guess incorrectly?"

"Well, as I said, the channel comes in a little blurry. I know it is hard to believe, but as I say, my track record is proven. So I would like to make a proposal. In two weeks, I will be opening the 'Lowell's Den Book and Casino' on the strip of the greatest city in the world, yes, none other than Las Vegas, which, among other reasons, is why I am appearing on your show tonight. If you are willing, I will select a member of your audience tonight to participate in a special contest of prediction!"

The audience roars with approval. Jay Leno looks up at his producer, who is nodding his head like a ragdoll and giving two enthusiastic thumbs up. "I'm sure no one will object," Jay laughs, and the audience cheers fill the studio. "So long," Jay adds, "as we can film it live, here on my show! What do you say audience?" Of course the audience erupts. "Now, Bernie, what contest do you propose?"

"Jay," says Bernie, "I propose this: you may select any member from your audience, here, tonight. You will invite the lucky individual back tomorrow to particpate in the following game: this individual will sit at a table, and on the table there will be two boxes, one labelled 'A' and one labelled 'B'. I tell you now that I will put a ten thousand dollar check inside box 'A'. Box 'B' will either contain a check for one million dollars, or it will contain absolutely nothing! You see, the contestant knows that there is certainly ten thousand dollars in box 'A' no matter what else happens, but he/she cannot know what I have decided to do with box 'B'.

"Now," continues Bernard, "the contestant will choose between two options: either the contestant may choose to take box 'B' only; or to take both 'A' and 'B'. Do you understand?"

Jay Leno thinks about it. "I understand that no one but a nut job would take only box 'B'. Why shouldn't someone choose both?"

The man named Bernard Lowell smiles. "Well," he says, "there is, of course, a catch. If I predict that the contestant will take both boxes, then I will put nothing in box 'B'. If I am right, the contestant will get the ten thousand dollars that will always be in box 'A' and the 'nothing' I put in box 'B', and we'll call it a day.

"On the other hand," Bernard says, "if I predict that the contestant will choose only box 'B', then I will put the check for one million dollars in that box. Of course, the contestant will get the contents of the box or boxes selected, regardless of what I predict."

Jay says, "Everyone will think you're a bum if you decide not to put the money in there, you know."

"I don't care about that," Bernard confidently responds. "My concern is simply to protect my reputation. While it's true that one out of ten times I guess incorrectly, I will only get this one shot of publically proving that my reputation is well-earned. I will make my prediction, and I will predict correctly. Now, if everyone understands, Jay, please choose your contestant, and after the show is over, and the cameras are off, I will make my decision."

Jay strolls through an audience packed with people jumping, hair-pulling, screaming to be chosen as the lucky contestant, and he finally glides to a stop--

--In front of you!

You have been chosen! Jay sets you up in a nice hotel for the night, chats you up through the pre-show, and assures you that he has no clue as to what Bernard Lowell has predicted.

And then, at last, the moment of decision arrives. Jay sits you at the table, and just as Mr. Lowell suggested, there are two boxes, one clearly labelled "A," and one clearly labelled "B," but it is impossible to see the contents.

Mr. Bernard Lowell approaches, and restates the rules. You must choose either box "B" only, or both boxes. "A" has ten thousand dollars, that much is absolutely certain. But whether or not box "B" has a million dollars in it, only Lowell knows.

If he has predicted that you would choose both, there will be nothing in that box. If he has predicted you would only take box "B", then there will indeed be one million dollars inside. What to do?

"Can I have a glass of water?" you ask.

Good for you. You got a laugh from the audience. But how much money will you get from the boxes? Will you get zero dollars, ten thousand dollars, one million dollars, or one million dollars on top of ten thousand additional dollars?

It is time to make your selection. What do you choose?

At Amazon: Labyrinths of Reason

Related Posts:
1. Riddle: Taboo's "Free Will Versus the Sports Book" Paradox

Distantly Related Posts:
1. Your Limited Perspective: A Woman Problem
2. The Power of the Mind (Even Yours)
3. Sudoku Tips and Tricks

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo Monkey Blue Blog: Writing on Writing

 


posted by: supremeanna (reply)
post date: 04.01.06 (8:21 am)

hmmm, i'm sure there's a catch, but i won't be greedy. haha, i'll take both boxes and live with only the ten thousand if that's all i get 10,000 is better than 0 in my opinion, if i get another million, that's just a bonus :0



posted by: jayne d'Arcy (reply)
post date: 04.01.06 (8:30 am)

I'd have to go for the sure thing. I'd choose both.



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.02.06 (4:33 am)

all right, i'm not giving a solution here, but i will play devil's advocate for the moment.

none of you are investors, i see.

i'm not much for math (in the end, this really isn't a math riddle--still, it's a good place to start), but think about it in terms of odds. you have two choices:

1. BOTH A AND B
--bernard guesses correctly 9 of 10 times. let's suppose, for the sake of the riddle, that bernard might truly be capable of guessing correctly 9 of 10 times.
--so, 9 of 10 times, when you choose OPTION#1, you will make $10,000, and 1 of 10 times you will make $1,010,000.
--if you were allowed to play OPTION#1 10 tries in a row, you would make $1,100,000 total. nice haul!

2. ONLY B
--again, bernard guesses correctly 9 of 10 times.
--so, 9 of 10 times, when you choose OPTION#2, you will make $1,000,000, and 1 of 10 times you will make $0.
--if you were allowed to play OPTION#2 10 tries in a row, you would make $9,000,000 total.

TO RECAP: according to this logic, anyway, you should make slightly less than 9 times as much choosing OPTION#2--statistically.

taboo








posted by: darksaber (reply)
post date: 04.02.06 (7:58 am)

Reply to: tabootenente
Yes, BUT... Jay Leno's show is not shown on ESPN sportscenter, at least as far as I know. If we are going to believe he can guess 9 out of 10 correctly we might as well believe him when he says how. So instead of having advance knowledge of what I would choose, Lowell would only see blurry reruns of the time that autistic kid scored a lot in his school basketball game.

If Lowell was lying about the whole ESP ESPN thing, then B is clearly the better deal. I would choose B, but I'd have to calm myself so I wouldn't explode if I ended up with nothing.
-Revan



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.03.06 (4:02 am)

darksaber,

good points. so we get into one of the problems with riddles in general: the wording. so many riddles demand, as part of the solution, a careful review of the language.

let's say, for the sake of the riddle, that whatever method lowell uses to make his prediction (his ESP/ESPN thing, a team of statisticians, or just a bunch of fellas named guido and nunzio armed with billy clubs) his track record is still documented, and verified by the proper authorities.

also, for the sake of the riddle, let's say that his method is useful for making predictions on various propositions (sports bets, SAT questions, or boxes labelled with little A's and B's).

even agreeing with all that, you're still right. you've nailed one of the two ideas that create the paradox. the first was probability/risk, and the second was "advance knowledge."

how can lowell "know" what you will do? what happens to your power to choose your own destiny?

taboo




posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.06.06 (3:56 am)

on the other hand, you might wonder about your free will.

after all, lowell has already made his prediction, right? you're the one sitting in front of the boxes. he can't swoop in and change his mind, now. maybe you should go ahead and pick both boxes! the money is either there or it isn't. you have the free will to make your choice, right? the past can't control what you do now, right?

taboo




posted by: Cooper (reply)
post date: 04.07.06 (3:39 am)

Just discovered your site though blog explosion - it's one of the most interesting I've seen on my travels through. Really interesting posts. This one made my brain hurt - it hurts anyway with this hangover, but nevermind. I'm going to have to get two boxes out. It's easier to think about if I can see them.
"get into one of the problems with riddles in general: the wording. so many riddles demand, as part of the solution, a careful review of the language" - I've got a site: http://www.sixlinereviews.com - if you can review your language and get something down to six lines do you reckon you could write one?



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.07.06 (4:40 am)

cooper,

i haven't had a chance to browse over to your site, yet. most likely i'll understand the six-line review more clearly when i do.

in general, i like the idea of skinning articles down through a series of drafting and editing. wordiness is sloppiness.

that's one of the several reasons i like to keep a blog. i'm a blatherer at heart, and if i prevent myself from blathering here, then my blathering will infect my real writing elsewhere.

i was writing to someone else about this today: i don't know whether you're familiar with foucault (he's a french philosophicationizer fella, whose name every mfa student carries around in his head--not necessarily because we're so impressed with his ideas, but because it's part of the contract. you drive, you get a driver's license. you're in an mfa program, you're prepared to talk about foucault on a moment's notice) but here's one of his ideas:

when he writes, he comes up with an idea, a premise, or even a simple sentence. then he writes and writes, until at last, on page 47, he re-reads his last sentence and says "hello! THAT'S what i was trying to say, and i didn't know it!"

hence this blather. without it, my real writing only finds the beginning by stumbling upon it at the end.

thanks for your comment--i'll check out your site.

taboo




posted by: Cooper (reply)
post date: 04.07.06 (5:23 am)

I can't remember who said "I'm sorry this letter is so long, but I have not had time to make it shorter." but it's the same idea. I like the vague limits of six lines. Some people use it to be very personal and some to be obtuse.



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.07.06 (7:49 am)

cooper:

you're looking for a six-line review of my site, an article, or another article? i'll go check out your site.

taboo



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.07.06 (7:52 am)

zandperl,

thanks--i liked (and linked in my blogroll) your site. some intriguing posts . . .

taboo




posted by: Cooper (reply)
post date: 04.08.06 (12:46 am)

Literally a six line review of anything - I like your writing style and it would be interesting to see how you tackle it. Would be good to get some different voices on there.



posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 04.10.06 (4:22 am)

I am so confused.... damn. Is this a Hakim's razor thingy? If so? I'll go with the odds. I'll believe in God - but which box is that?

I'd think he'd predict that people would take either box A for the sure thing (just in case the scond box held an invoice for ten grand) or both - if that possibility is off the table.





posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 04.10.06 (4:28 am)

Reply to: surrogate
Oh no... I did it again... I'm always confusing Hakim's razor with Pascal's triangle. Damn these guys for taxing my tiny brain. And I probably misspelled both anyway... Screw it. I want both boxes.



posted by: tabootenente (reply)
post date: 04.10.06 (6:06 am)


i have 10 minutes, here, so forgive any laziness leaking through my thinking.

so, you only have two choices:
1. A and B;
2. or only B.

statistically speaking: you should choose B--if, of course, you are able to stomach the idea of foreknowledge.

there's the risk factor: how much value does 10,000 really have for you? if 10,000 wont affect your life, then why bother choosing both A and B? however, if 10,000 dollars will get you out of max.security prison, or NOT getting 10,000 will ensure that your woman and rob redford will shack up, maybe you ought to stay away from choosing only B.

then there's the game theory approach:
1. you'll win the most if you choose both boxes, and lowell predicts you'll only choose B: you get 1,010,000 (you win, lowell loses).
2. you'll lose the most if you choose B and lowell predicts you'll choose both: you get 0 (you lose, lowell loses).
3. you'll win a huge pot of you choose B, and lowell also predicts you'll choose B: you get 1,000,000 (you win, lowell wins).
4. you'll get the consolation prize if you choose both boxes, and lowell predicts you'll choose both: you get 10,000 (you lose, lowell wins--he guesses correctly, and only has to pay the small sum).
--game theory says that the only outcome where you both win is when you both choose box B. if you defect, then you win and he loses. if lowell defects and you dont, you both lose. if you both defect, lowell wins and you lose. if you both stay true, you both win.
--therefore, says game theory, you should choose box B.

however: perhaps the riddle isn't a statistics problem. think about free will. lowell has made a choice (his prediction). you are about to make a choice (both boxes or just box B).

1. lowell's choice has already taken place--can your present-moment choice really relate to the choice he's already made?

2. and if not, then how could he possibly make his predictions so accurately?

--the whole esp thing confuses everything. without the idea of esp involved in his prediction-making process, this question would be a much easier one. suppose esp was left out of the riddle: we'd have to assume that his predictions are made based on sound, evaluative judgment--hard work, empathy, understanding of nature both human and other. in this case, he's predicting how your character will inform your choice. that he successfully understands such situations 9 of 10 times suggests that he is capable of knowing you--perhaps more thoroughly than you know yourself.

--using esp, however, makes you confront the whole issue of free will and self-determination. who controls whom? is everything cause and effect?

if you believe in free will, look at it this way: lowell has already either placed the money in box b, or decided against placing the money in box b. you should now, safely be able to choose BOTH boxes without any fear of losing the 1,000,000 dollars. if he didn't put 1,000,000 in box B, you'll at least get the 10,000. if he didn't put 1,000,000 in box B, then you wont get it anyway, right? no matter what you do, you wont get it, right?

if you believe in fate, then you are doomed to win or lose. console yourself with the knowledge that you didn't cause the outcome to occur. your job is simply to understand your unity with the universe.

if you're one of them existential fellas, first of all you ought to stay away from the kid's book Goodnight Moon (long story, not relevant, sorry).

second, you better choose carefully. no one but you can make the choice you're about to make--and you must be able to live with the consequences. perhaps your choice will affect lowell's choice, jay leno's show, the audience, the world; however, you'll never understand how. there are too many variables: some act upon your decision, some act upon the consequences, some act independently of any of your choice-driven forces.

so, if you're a statistics guy, go B.

so, if you're an ethical or game theory guy, go B.

so, if you dont want rob redford slobbering over your woman, go with both--or check yourself into gambler's anonymous.

and this is really just a surface discussion of the riddle. in fact, the paradox has much more depth--clever readers may have spotted the so-called wormholes scattered throughout the riddle and this discussion. i received an email yesterday that identified a central paradox that i hadn't even considered. i don't want to write it here, yet, because it will likely slant the reading/thinking about the riddle.

but i'll ask this question now: is there a difference between a riddle, logic problem, math problem, and a paradox?

taboo




posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 04.11.06 (5:00 am)

taboo, taboo, taboo.

Riddle:

Why did the chicken cross the road.?

Logic problem:

Why should the chicken cross the road?

Math problem:

One chicken. Starts to cross the road and is subsequently subdivided by the front and rear tires of an automobile. With exactly how many pieces of chicken are we left?

Paradox:

Though indeed taking the action, we can presume that the chicken, though aware it is walking, probably has no ability to discern "road" from "ground." Further, the term "cross" would have no meaning whatsoever to said chicken. To a chicken, I'd guess, movement is, alas, simply a process of getting from 'over here" to "over there."



Your Name:


Your Comment: