= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Bayesian probability as an approximate theory of uncertainty? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
Solution: I choose red with probability (written out and ROT13) avargl bar bire bar uhaqerq naq rvtugl.
EDIT: V'z fhecevfrq ubj pybfr guvf vf gb n unys.
I get that too. More generally, if there are n+1 rounds and on the first round the difference in probability between red and blue is z, then the optimal probability for choosing red is 1/2 + z/2n. It has to be close to 1/2 for large n, because 1/2 is optimal for the game where z=0, and over ten rounds the loss from deviating from 1/2 after the first round dominates the gain from knowing red is initially favoured.
Sure that's not 1/2 + z/4n?
I think he meant "the difference between the probability of red and 1/2" when he said "the difference in probability between red and blue".
Er, right, something like that.
That works too.