> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > A voter might be willing to use option C even though D gives a better
> > expected value.
>
> In my opinion, if the voter prefers to vote option C than option D,
> because he doesn't want to risk the -1 outcome, then he has not
> correctly estimated that value as being -1.
I guess it depends on how you define it. However, the example often given
is which would you prefer?
51% chance of getting $200
100% chance of getting $100
Risk aversion is a known economic effect.
It only happens when you are talking about a major portion of a person's
wealth.
> Do feel this is a big problem? I have seen more concern that voters
> will vote the opposite way: Commit to a favorite candidate and cut
> off any chance of even electing the second favorite.
No, I don't think this is a problem. In fact, having voters who
don't vote in the extremes can help smooth out election results,
so they don't jump between two very different results.
I was trying to give a rationality for people not using maximally
strategic votes.
>
> > The example given was:
> >
> > Assuming that you start with $1 and can place a bet on a fair coin. If
> > you win, you get 1.05 times your stake (and your stake back). You get to
> > repeat the gamble as often as you want, but can only use your initial
> > stake and any money you win.
> >
> > What is the optimal amount to bet in order to maximise the rate of
> > income. Clearly, if you bet all your money you will with near certainty
> > be bankrupt after say, 10 rounds.
>
> I'm pretty sure you'd want to place a lot of very small bets. Do you
> have the answer?
>
Yeah, you would try to max the log of the expected result.
This works out at betting approx
0.5*(1 - 1/(g))
where g is the gain for winning (1.05)
This works out in the example above of 0.0238 times your total.
Betting anything higher than that gets exponentially more risky.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
