You are giving me an order? That is interesting ... Kindly refrain from posting on my threads going forward.
BHS, I don't see that the problem was correctly presented if the answer is as you explained it. In your initial post you say the following: Yet in the "solution" you say this: It seems to me that if the "modern electronics" are set to show more apparent "near misses" than the other machines, then the machines cannot be "identical in function". So what am I missing? How can you manipulate in ANY way the (so called) "behavior" of one machine and yet call it "identical in function"?? As an added "gripe" with the solution (probably irrelevant)...a real life problem with this solution is that the electronics have nothing to do with payouts, near misses or anything at all. Modern slot machines are run completely by computerized random number generators. The only REAL difference between the old mechanical slots and today's electronic slots is that on the old slots, the wheels would spin until friction slowed them down to a stop. In modern machines, the number generator determines IN ADVANCE WHILE THE WHEEL IS STILL SPINNING WHERE IT WILL stop. This is far more random than a mechanical slot....since mechanical slots may have unbalanced wheels, uneven ratchets, (some filed ratchets on "crooked" machines were very common years ago) or any of a number of other mechanical imbalances. My understanding of this comes from many conversations with slot techs as they serviced the machines. So unless they all lied to me, this is how they work. There is no way to program a wheel to stop on any particular notch. Not that it is not possible. It is just not how the machines are designed. What makes the big winners so rare is the enormous (in "spots") size of the wheels. Consider a machine with 4 wheels each with 40 possible stops. This gives 2.56 million possible combinations. Now combinations can certainly be made to be common, or at the other extreme, it is possible to make the odds of hitting a particular combo one in 2.56 million. Or anything in between. BUT....the second you change the way the symbols are arranged on the wheels, it seems that the "identical in function" part goes out the window. Apart from this layout of symbols on the machines wheels, the probability of any wheel stopping on any symbol is exactly as random as the toss of a pair of dice (or 4 or 5 dice may be a more appropriate analogy....whatever...it doesn't matter really), or the spin of a roulette wheel. I know this is contrary to the beliefs of many. But it is how electronic machines work. No "memory"...just random. And that is enough to make the payout "adjustable" enough by laying out the symbols. Again, the only control being the way the symbols are stuck on the wheels seems to exclude the machines from being "identical in function". I guess as a hypothetical exercise, the answer could suffice. As a real exercise, I do not see the answer being legitimate. I spent too much time in Vegas I guess. Peace BHS....and next time in Chaing Mai we WILL make it to House in Park...sorry I got sidetracked last month. Will keep you posted. RS
First, this was the way the question was presented by Munger. Second, I did see the misleading 'identical in function' and clarified it early in this thread. Take a look at the last post on page 1. You may have missed it. On page 2 I also made this clear in my response to Nitro's post. Again, you are taking issue with the language in the solution, namely the use of 'electronics.' I understand the issue as well as you but would remind that the speaker is Charles Munger, an 80 year old geezer who probably never owned a tech stock in his life. I think the nice thing to do is cut the old dude some slack. We know perfectly well what he meant. If you are saying that the algorythms only determine 'where the wheel will stop' and not whether it will generate a near miss, well, that would be silly. If a wheel is programmed to stop according to some algorythm, it can certainly be programmed to generate more near misses than one might otherwise expect.
OK, noted and thanks for that answer. You indeed did clearly state your own observed "flaw" with the "identical function" issue clearly. And you were right....I either read right through it or missed it entirely. (Too busy trying to pin down a solution to bother with "hints"). I should have paid more attention!! LOL....sure, let's cut the guy some slack. (I understand your point.....he need not know the actual workings of the device to make his thesis...it is actually irrelevant). What "can be" and what actually is....well these are two different issues. I just made mention of the fact that this isn't actually done. Not that it could not BE done. That is why I called it a "real world gripe"...not an out of the realm of possibility solution. Absolutely the computers could be programmed to respond any way you wanted them to. I was only pointing out that in actual application, this just is not done. But again, it is irrelevant. The entire solution is of course correct in it's psychological approach. The "mechanical means" to achieve the goal is not important. Only the results. Here Munger is 100% accurate. Peace, RS