Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

Puzzles for Traders

Recommended Posts

I thought that I would post a series of coffee-break puzzles, partly because they're fun, but also because they can lead to a better understanding of the statistical processes that underlie the assumptions we often make when evaluating trading approaches . . .

 

A city has a large hospital and a small hospital. Each has a maternity ward. Yesterday, 60% of the births at one of these hospitals were boys.

 

Which hospital is this more likely to be?

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

The conclusion that it is the small hospital is incorrect. We simply don't know. The argument that it is determined by the sample size, doesn't hold weight, since we don't know what the sample size is for either. One hospital is larger, but that doesn't mean its maternity ward is larger. It also doesn't mean it had a larger sample of births on that day. That's a false assumption. Also there seems to be a hidden assumption that births are equally likely to be boys as girls. This too is not correct, but is at least closer to the truth than the sample size point.

 

So given the information stated, they are equally likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other possible answers to pattuca's riddle (and yes it should have been capitalised, otherwise it's just poorly phrased):

 

Answer: He didn't (seems valid enough to me)

 

Another answer: frist he crossed the bridge one way, then he turned and went over it again, and on the second trip he was technically both crossing and going around the bridge.

 

There is often more than one valid answer. It may not be the answer the riddler had in mind, but it can still be 'correct'.

 

 

Here's a maths puzzle.

 

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other possible answers to pattuca's riddle (and yes it should have been capitalised, otherwise it's just poorly phrased):

 

Answer: He didn't (seems valid enough to me)

 

Another answer: frist he crossed the bridge one way, then he turned and went over it again, and on the second trip he was technically both crossing and going around the bridge.

 

There is often more than one valid answer. It may not be the answer the riddler had in mind, but it can still be 'correct'.

 

 

Here's a maths puzzle.

 

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

 

 

( I have a feeling this is a factorial question but I'm feeling lazy)

 

if they are all rational in the economic sense, then they are self serving. Everyone would vote to kill the oldest for a larger share, until only the two youngest brothers are left and they split it 50m/50m

 

but if they were smart the three eldest brothers would realize this, and sacrifice some of their gains to keep their lives.

 

these arnt exact because im too lazy to do the math during the trading day but

 

1. the oldest would take around 7.5m and divide the rest up roughly

2 would receive around 12.5m

3 would receive around 20m

4 would receive around 30m

5 would receive around 30m (also 5 would receive the same amount as 4, because in the greedy situation where the 3 eldest are killed, the youngest doesn't have greater than 50% of the vote, 4 would except no less than 5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

 

apart from killing each other to keep it all....

 

As the older brother only needs to keep 2 other brothers on side to keep > 50% of the vote.

He can split the inheritance 3 ways to maximise his amount.

3 brothers are happy with $33 mil each , the other 2 have to accept the democratic process.

Basically on this rationale if it was to be split evenly at 20mil each....all you need to do is offer at least two of the brothers a little bit more than that share to get them onside...so it could be as little as 21each to 2 other brothers, screw 2 brothers who have to accept it and keep the remaining 100-(2x21)=$58mil for himself.

 

Too bad ideas of justice and greed get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apart from killing each other to keep it all....

 

As the older brother only needs to keep 2 other brothers on side to keep > 50% of the vote.

He can split the inheritance 3 ways to maximise his amount.

3 brothers are happy with $33 mil each , the other 2 have to accept the democratic process.

Basically on this rationale if it was to be split evenly at 20mil each....all you need to do is offer at least two of the brothers a little bit more than that share to get them onside...so it could be as little as 21each to 2 other brothers, screw 2 brothers who have to accept it and keep the remaining 100-(2x21)=$58mil for himself.

 

Too bad ideas of justice and greed get in the way.

 

Again, good ideas. Not the right answer though. But on the right track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The conclusion that it is the small hospital is incorrect.

 

Hi Seeker,

 

Your points are all quite correct: we can't be certain, and our best guess could involve flawed assumptions.

 

Ignoring the inadequacies of the way I stated the question though, hopefully the point about sample size remains valid.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Seeker,

 

Your points are all quite correct: we can't be certain, and our best guess could involve flawed assumptions.

 

Ignoring the inadequacies of the way I stated the question though, hopefully the point about sample size remains valid.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

Yes, of course, assuming 50% prob male to female births, it's slightly more likely to be the smaller sample size.

 

Let me know if you want the answer to the 5 brother problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the answer is that:

 

 

 

......

 

 

 

The eldest brother gives brothers 3 and 5, the minimum possible, i.e. if the minimum unit is 1 dollar, he gives them 1 dollar each (if minimum is one cent, he gives them one cent each) and keeps the rest for himself.

 

The reason is: Following from traderunner's thought, you work backwards. If there are two brothers, the elder of the two keeps all the money, because he will get 50% of the vote, and so he walks away with all the money. Extending this to 3 brothers, the youngest of all knows that if he votes against the eldest brothers plan, and the eldest brother loses, then he will walk away with nothing. So he'll accept anything greater than 0 (1 cent, one dollar for example). Brother 3 knows this, so he can offer the one cent to that brother and nothing to the brother in between. This logic works back all the way to the first of 5 brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess pure rationality does not mix with the ideas of justice and fairness.....simply a fear of death v money. :roll eyes:

No wonder we have financial crisisisiesiesiiisssss

 

also makes you wonder if the early innovators of inheritance - give it all to the first born male (usually the most aggressive sex) made a lot of sense.

Edited by SIUYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.