# Applying Game Theory to Gambling is Silly

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/applying-game-theory-to-gambling-is-silly/312600>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [July 15, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/applying-game-theory-to-gambling-is-silly/312600 "2005-07-15T02:00:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/applying-game-theory-to-gambling-is-silly/312600/21 "2005-07-15T15:59:31Z")

</div>

Holy shit, dude, brotherhood in political science. I am very fond of Putnam’s work. FYI, my NYC metro reading right now is _The Logic of Political Survival_ by BDM, Smith, Siverson, and Morrow. It’s a fantastic read, though big hardcovers during rush hour is a drag. [sub]I wrote my MA paper with BDM, btw, and Smith was my game theory teacher.[/sub]

Re: Downs, I have never so much as cracked it open, honestly. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he is in error, so much as there are a lot more high-tech tools and more interesting results in more modern literature. I am honestly surprised that people are still teaching it in rational choice-oriented classes. If you really want a good grounding in the method and don’t mind a first-rate slog, then there is no substitute for Austen-Smith and Banks’ _Positive Political Theory I_. Another amazing book, but even I wouldn’t read it on the subway.

> [@Only Mostly Dead](#):
>
> Yeah, I last read it for a college course three years ago or so, and it was tough for me then (with little to no grounding in the theory already), so I would not be surprised to find error in it now. Especially the last third, about the utility for the individual voter to seek out information and be informed. The individual’s desire toward civic engagement has drastically changed (cite: my current DC Metro reading, Robert Putnam “Bowling Alone”), which would almost definitely undermine that entire chunk of the book. And the rest is the Hotelling/Median Voter Theory, which has also changed as mainstream participation in politics has waned and the extreme pundits on either side grown more influential/rabid.
> 
> In other words, I can imagine you’re perfectly right without re-reading Downs.
> 
> But I did read it before ever trying to cite it. And I can attest that it has been taught as the Word as recently as 2002.
> 
> This thread has quickly digressed away from the OP’s (weak) intent, and become a prime example of what I love about this board. Digression becomes a geekfest on a neglected corner of academia.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/applying-game-theory-to-gambling-is-silly/312600/22 "2005-07-15T17:41:05Z")

</div>

The reason most gambling is stupid is not because of your chances of winning, its the value of the bet.

If you have a one dollar stake and your chances of winning are 1000:1, you might expect your payout to be $1000.

If instead your payout is $100, then its not a particularly good value bet.

Now if you look at most state lotteries, your ratio of win probability to payout is terrible, you can look at either winning the smaller prizes, or the jackpot, these are extremely poor value bets.

It is very hard for folk to get their heads around this.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/applying-game-theory-to-gambling-is-silly/312600.md?page=1)