Snap - the real deal.

So what is the Prisoner's Dilemma?  It goes like this - you and an accomplice have committed a serious offence.  You have both been arrested, and are being held in separate police stations, with no way of contacting each other.  You are approached by a detective who has a proposition for you, and who makes it clear that the same proposition is being put to your accomplice.  The proposition is this - if you are willing to confess and give evidence against your accomplice, you will go free and your accomplice, thanks to your evidence, will be convicted of the full offence, and will go to prison for 15 years.  If you both confess, you will both go on trial for the full offence, but consideration will be given to the fact that you have confessed, and you will both get a reduced sentence of 5 years.  If neither of you confess, there will not be enough evidence to put you on trial for the full offence, so you will both be charged with a lesser offence for which the authorities have ample evidence against you and you will go to prison for one year.  What should you do?  You will see the similarity with the card game - the "safe" option for you is to confess - that way the worst that can happen is you go away for 5 years, and there's always the possibility you will go free.  On the other hand, if you both refuse to confess, that is the best option for both of you, as you both end up with just a year inside, but can you trust your accomplice?  If you refuse to confess, and he (or she)  confesses, you end up with 15 years in the slammer!

Sexist? - not really.

The BBC are being roundly condemned for the fact that the short list for the Sports Personality of the Year contains no women.  Bit unfair really, as the make-up of the short list was not compiled by the BBC, but by an independent panel of sports writers.  But why no women?  Well, I think in great part it is for the same reason that League 2 football matches do not get the same attendance figures as the Premiership - when it comes to sports, people want to see the best, and with the greatest respect to women, as most sports contain a significant physical element, women are always going to be outclassed by men.  I have mentioned before how surprising I find it that women do not feature more in non-physical competitions like snooker, darts, ten-pin bowling and the like but with the possible exception of gymnastics, when it comes to watching sport, I will choose a male competition over a female one just about every time.  This isn't anti-women, it's just pro-top class sport.

Snap - continued.

Well the obvious strategy is to play red - that way you are guaranteed to win £1 every hand, and you could win £10.  Problem is of course that your opponent is equally capable of working that out and so the likelihood is that you will both play red every time - boring.  Of course, if you both play black you could triple your winnings, and this is where it becomes interesting.  After five hands you are allowed to talk to each other, and you could both agree to play black.  But now the question is - can you trust your opponent, and equally can they trust you?  Because if you know, or think you know that your opponent is going to play black, you can play red and potentially win £10.  This is in fact a variation on what is known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma" - a situation where co-operation is more beneficial, but leaves you open to treachery.  There's no right answer - it's just an interesting conundrum.

Snap?

Here's a simple card game for two players - you each have two cards, one red, one black.  You choose which card you intend to play, and put the other card away from you face down on the table.  You then each show the card you have elected to play.  If you both show red cards, you each win £1.  If one of you shows a red card and the other a black, the one who shows the red card wins £10 and the one who shows black wins nothing.  If you both show black cards, you both win £3.  The money comes from some philanthropic third party, so neither of you loses anything.  The game can only be played ten times, and you are not allowed to speak to each other until five hands have been played.  What should be your strategy?

The Lazy Cook

Poor man's kedgeree
Tinned kippers
2 eggs
Packet microwaveable rice
Teaspoon curry powder (optional)
Melt a knob of butter in a frying pan or wok.  Mash up the kippers and add to the pan.  Add the rice and (optional) curry powder and fry for a couple of minutes.  Beat up the eggs with a drop of milk and add to the pan, stirring continuously to scramble.  Serve on its own or on toast.

Rien ne va plus

Suggestion that schoolchildren should be taught how to "gamble responsibly" - very good idea, although I can't see it sitting comfortably with the churches or Daily Mail readers.  One aspect of betting which can confuse even those experienced in the art is our use in this country of "fractional" odds rather than the method favoured in most of the rest of the world of "decimal" odds.  Decimal odds are quoted to show you how much you will get back if your bet wins.  So if team A are quoted at 2.4 to beat team B and you put £1 on them to win and they do, you will get £2.40 back - a profit of £1.40.  So it's easy enough to compare bets and see which has the potential to win you the most, but which will win you more - a bet quoted at 7/4 or one quoted at 6/5?  To convert fractional odds into decimal, simply divide the first figure by the second and add one.  So 7/4 becomes 7 divided by 4 which is 1.75 and add 1 to make it 2.75, and 6/5 becomes 6 divided by 5 which is 1.2 which with one added is 2.2, so the 7/4 shot will win you more - assuming of course that you do win.  Mind you, whether the odds you are being quoted are value for money is another matter altogether.

Push the button, Max.

So what do you think?  The Schools' Minister is proposing to limit the use of calculators in primary schools.  He says that it is important that kids are able to solve simple sums without resorting to an electronic gadget.  We certainly seem to have stopped teaching the "times tables" which underpin so much of mathematics.  On the other hand, I find myself automatically reaching for my little machine when I have to do a calculation, even though I am well capable of working it out for myself - if the facility exists to make life easier, why not use it?  So what do you think?

Ha ha

I had amnesia once - - or was it twice?

Upsy-daisy

I don't know why, but recently the question has resurfaced as to whether it is treason to stick a postage stamp on an envelope upside down - well, it's not.  I think the idea probably originated because way back the basic common law definition of treason was simply disloyalty to the Crown, and if they'd had postage stamps back then probably affixing one upside down might well have been seen as an expression of disloyalty.  Today treason is a statutory offence and there's no mention of postage stamps, and unlike some other countries we do not have an offence of lèse majesté which essentially means offending the dignity of the Monarch.  In America the tradition has arisen of using the positioning of the stamp as a means of sending a message - as I understand it, upside down means "I love you".

Fair do's

Having re-read my last two posts, I have to accept that I seem to be having a go at Vettel - damning him with faint praise over his championship and taking the gloss off his new record of the number of pole positions in a season.  And that would be really unfair because he can only drive the race that's put before him - if he finds himself (as he so often did) on pole in the fastest car and therefore able to simply drive away from the opposition, that's simply the way things are.  I just wish I could feel more confident that he could cut the mustard if the chips were really down (and how's that for a mixed metaphor?).  And until McLaren or Ferrari or whoever come up with a competitive car I'm never going to know, am I?