Probability and Fairness

LONG Bing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-7902.2011.03.004

2011-01-01

Abstract:This paper attempts to take two examples to explain how to determinate the ratio of betting so as to ensure the fairness of gambling.In addition,it is pointed out that probability can also be used to analyze the fairness of some phenomena that look unfair.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Belief Function to Probability: A Tradeoff Between Easy Decision-Making and High Risk

Zhe Zhou,Chunjie Yang,Chenglin Wen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/icca.2013.6565080

2013-01-01

Abstract:The problem of probability transformation is crucial for decision-making in Dempster-Shafer Theory of evidence. In this paper, a compromise method has been proposed for transforming basic probability assignment to probability function. The novel transformation method can acquire better balance between easy decision-making and high risk. Numerical examples are used to illustrate the rationality and efficiency of the proposed method.
Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

Qingzhou Sun,Tao Jiang,Jing Zhang,Qingyuan Wu,Lei Zhao,Fengpei Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1664388

2019-01-01

The Journal of General Psychology

Abstract:In social and economic interactions, people often decide differently for others, as against for themselves, under situations involving risks. This sometimes leads to conflicts or contradictions. Although previous studies have explored such contradictions, the findings have been inconsistent. To reconcile these inconsistencies, this paper investigates the role played by the different domains and probabilities in the self-other differences under risk. Two groups of participants completed a gambling task combining different domains (gain vs. loss) and probabilities (small vs. large). One group made decisions for others and the other group made decisions for themselves. The results revealed a four pattern of discrepancy: the ones who made decisions for others were less risk-seeking than those who made decisions for themselves over the small probability gains. This was reversed over the large probability gains. Conversely, the participants who made decisions for others were more risk-seeking than those who made decisions for themselves over the small probability losses. The results were reversed over the large probability losses. These results reconcile the contradictory findings of the previous studies and suggest the significant role played by contextual factors in such discrepancies.
A random journey through the math of gambling

Paolo Bartesaghi

2023-09-04

Abstract:The laws of chance are often subtle and deceptive. This is why games of chance work. People are convinced that they obey seemingly intuitive laws, while the underlying mathematical structure reveals a different and more complex reality. This article is a brief and rigorous journey through the implications that the mathematical laws governing stochastic processes have on gambling. It addresses a specific process, the random walk, and analyze some instances of fair and unfair games by highlighting the fallacy of many of our intuitions and beliefs. The paper gradually moves from the analysis of the random walk properties to a comprehensive description of the ruin problem. The introduction of the idea of transient and persistent states concludes the discussion. Much emphasis is placed on concrete examples and on the numerical values, in particular of the involved probabilities, and the interpretation of the results is always more central than the demonstrative technical details, which are nevertheless available to the reader.

History and Overview,Probability
Long bet will lose: demystifying seemingly fair gambling via two-armed Futurity bandit

Zengjing Chen,Huaijin Liang,Wei Wang,Xiaodong Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.11766

2022-11-12

Abstract:No matter how much some gamblers occasionally win, as long as they continue to gamble, sooner or later they will lose more to the casino, which is the so-called long bet will lose. Our results demonstrate the counter-intuitive phenomenon, that gamblers involved in long bets will lose but casinos always advertise their unprofitable circumstances. Here we expose the law of inevitability behind long bet will loss by theoretically and experimentally demystifying the profitable mystery behind casinos under two-armed antique Mills Futurity slot machine. The main results straightforwardly elucidate that all casino projects are seemingly a fair gamble but essentially unfair, i.e., the casino's win rate is greater than 50%. We anticipate our assay to be a starting point for studying the fairness of more sophisticated multi-armed Futurity bandits based on the mathematical tool. In application, a fairness study of the Futurity bandits not only exposes the fraud of casinos for gamblers but also discloses discount marketing, bundled sales, or other induced consumption tactics.

General Finance,Probability
Demystifying the Two-Armed Futurity Bandit's Unfairness and Apparent Fairness

Huaijin Liang,Jin Ma,Wei Wang,Xiaodong Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math12111713

IF: 2.4

2024-05-31

Mathematics

Abstract:While a gambler may occasionally win, continuous gambling inevitably results in a net loss to the casino. This study experimentally demonstrates the profitability of a particularly deceptive casino game: a two-armed antique Mills Futurity slot machine. The main findings clearly show that both non-random and random two-arm strategies, predetermined by the player and repeated without interruption, are always profitable for the casino, despite two coins being refunded for every two consecutive losses by the gambler. We theoretically explore the cyclical nature of slot machine strategies and speculate on the impact of the frequency of switching strategies on casino returns. Our results not only assist casino owners in developing and improving casino designs, but also guide gamblers to participate more cautiously in gambling.

mathematics
Online Gambling of Pure Chance: Wager Distribution, Risk Attitude, and Anomalous Diffusion

Xiangwen Wang,Michel Pleimling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50168-2

2019-09-05

Abstract:Online gambling sites offer many different gambling games. In this work we analyse the gambling logs of numerous solely probability-based gambling games and extract the wager and odds distributions. We find that the log-normal distribution describes the wager distribution at the aggregate level. Viewing the gamblers' net incomes as random walks, we study the mean-squared displacement of net income and related quantities and find different diffusive behaviors for different games. We discuss possible origins for the observed anomalous diffusion.

Physics and Society
Gambling under unknown probabilities as a proxy for real world decisions under uncertainty

David J. Aldous,F. Thomas Bruss

2023-12-16

Abstract:We give elementary examples within a framework for studying decisions under uncertainty where probabilities are only roughly known. The framework, in gambling terms, is that the size of a bet is proportional to the gambler's perceived advantage based on their perceived probability, and their accuracy in estimating true probabilities is measured by mean squared-error. Within this framework one can study the cost of estimation errors, and seek to formalize the ``obvious" notion that in competitive interactions between agents whose actions depend on their perceived probabilities, those who are more accurate at estimating probabilities will generally be more successful than those who are less accurate.

Probability
Benford’s Law and Number Selection in Fixed-Odds Numbers Game

Mabel C. Chou,Qingxia Kong,Chung-Piaw Teo,Zuozheng Wang,Huan Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9145-9

2009-01-01

Journal of Gambling Studies

Abstract:In fixed-odds numbers games, the prizes and the odds of winning are known at the time of placement of the wager. Both players and operators are subject to the vagaries of luck in such games. Most game operators limit their liability exposure by imposing a sales limit on the bets received for each bet type, at the risk of losing the rejected bets to the underground operators. This raises a question--how should the game operator set the appropriate sales limit? We argue that the choice of the sales limit is intimately related to the ways players select numbers to bet on in the games. There are ample empirical evidences suggesting that players do not choose all numbers with equal probability, but have a tendency to bet on (small) numbers that are closely related to events around them (e.g., birth dates, addresses, etc.). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to quantify this phenomenon and examine its relation to the classical Benford's law. We use this connection to develop a choice model, and propose a method to set the appropriate sales limit in these games.
Some Notes on Betting Commitment Distance in Evidence Theory

DeQiang Han,Yong Deng,ChongZhao Han,Yi Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-011-4541-z

2012-01-01

Science China Information Sciences

Abstract:The distance of evidence, which represents the degree of dissimilarity between bodies of evidence, has attracted more and more interest and has found extensive uses in many realms. In this paper some notes on a widely used distance of evidence, i.e., betting commitment distance, are provided, including the arguments on the rationality of its definition, some misuses and some counter-intuitive behaviors of betting commitment distance. Several numerical examples are also provided to support and verify our arguments.
Impugning Randomness, Convincingly

Yuri Gurevich,Grant Olney Passmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1601.00665

2015-12-31

Abstract:John organized a state lottery and his wife won the main prize. You may feel that the event of her winning wasn't particularly random, but how would you argue that in a fair court of law? Traditional probability theory does not even have the notion of random events. Algorithmic information theory does, but it is not applicable to real-world scenarios like the lottery one. We attempt to rectify that.

Other Statistics
Auditing Fairness by Betting

Ben Chugg,Santiago Cortes-Gomez,Bryan Wilder,Aaditya Ramdas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.17570

IF: 5.414

2023-05-27

Machine Learning

Abstract:We provide practical, efficient, and nonparametric methods for auditing the fairness of deployed classification and regression models. Whereas previous work relies on a fixed-sample size, our methods are sequential and allow for the continuous monitoring of incoming data, making them highly amenable to tracking the fairness of real-world systems. We also allow the data to be collected by a probabilistic policy as opposed to sampled uniformly from the population. This enables auditing to be conducted on data gathered for another purpose. Moreover, this policy may change over time and different policies may be used on different subpopulations. Finally, our methods can handle distribution shift resulting from either changes to the model or changes in the underlying population. Our approach is based on recent progress in anytime-valid inference and game-theoretic statistics-the "testing by betting" framework in particular. These connections ensure that our methods are interpretable, fast, and easy to implement. We demonstrate the efficacy of our methods on several benchmark fairness datasets.
Equalised Odds is not Equal Individual Odds: Post-processing for Group and Individual Fairness

Edward A. Small,Kacper Sokol,Daniel Manning,Flora D. Salim,Jeffrey Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658989

2024-04-19

Abstract:Group fairness is achieved by equalising prediction distributions between protected sub-populations; individual fairness requires treating similar individuals alike. These two objectives, however, are incompatible when a scoring model is calibrated through discontinuous probability functions, where individuals can be randomly assigned an outcome determined by a fixed probability. This procedure may provide two similar individuals from the same protected group with classification odds that are disparately different -- a clear violation of individual fairness. Assigning unique odds to each protected sub-population may also prevent members of one sub-population from ever receiving equal chances of a positive outcome to another, which we argue is another type of unfairness called individual odds. We reconcile all this by constructing continuous probability functions between group thresholds that are constrained by their Lipschitz constant. Our solution preserves the model's predictive power, individual fairness and robustness while ensuring group fairness.

Machine Learning,Computers and Society,Optimization and Control,Probability
Judgment, Analysis and Inference on "fairness" in Distribution Results

ZHANG Si-feng,YONG Lan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-245x.2013.01.011

2013-01-01

Abstract:The polarization of gap and ownership of wealth between social members have triggered or aggravated a series of social problems and contradictions,and also caused long-term discussion on fairness of distribution results in academia.This paper has put forward two judgments on whether equal distribution result is or unfair.Based on introduction of several kinds of classical interpretations about two judgments,according to different standpoints of the parties concerned and the parties referred, from three time points-the past,present,and future,and in longitudinal and horizontal dimensions,an analytic model of fairness of distribution results from three perspectives of income,income and contribution,income and has been constructed.Thus,six important corollaries are obtained as follows:1.To be fair is an adjustment with relativity obtained through comparison.2.To be fair is desire and pursuit of vulnerable groups.3.To be fair is unity of fact description and value judgment.4.A single comparison between incomes is a simple,plain fairness judgment method.5.The analysis on income and contribution is suitable for judgment of first time distribution results.6.The analysis on income and demand is more suitable for judgment of redistribution results.
Mathematical Problem on Lottery Ticket

Zi Li

2003-01-01

Abstract:A economic action of lottery sale is analyzed, through introducing the compound risk tendency function, utility function and concept of marginal utility, it solves the contradiction of lottery such new-type investment model and traditional economy investment theory. A most important element of affecting on lottery sale:first-prize fund is gotten. At the same time, it also describes award grades set and the rationality of the bonus distribution with variance. A judgment model of lottery ticket with rationality is build. By the means of analysis and advance to existing classic scheme, best scheme.
How to Gamble If You're In a Hurry

Shalosh B. Ekhad,Doron Zeilberger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1112.1645

2014-11-26

Abstract:The beautiful theory of statistical gambling, started by Dubins and Savage (for subfair games) and continued by Kelly and Breiman (for superfair games) has mostly been studied under the unrealistic assumption that we live in a continuous world, that money is indefinitely divisible, and that our life is indefinitely long. Here we study these fascinating problems from a purely discrete, finitistic, and computational, viewpoint, using Both Symbol-Crunching and Number-Crunching (and simulation just for checking purposes).

Probability,Computer Science and Game Theory
A Lattice of Gambles

Paul Cuff,Thomas Cover,Gowtham Kumar,Lei Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1208.4414

2012-08-22

Abstract:A gambler walks into a hypothetical fair casino with a very real dollar bill, but by the time he leaves he's exchanged the dollar for a random amount of money. What is lost in the process? It may be that the gambler walks out at the end of the day, after a roller-coaster ride of winning and losing, with his dollar still intact, or maybe even with two dollars. But what the gambler loses the moment he places his first bet is position. He exchanges one distribution of money for a distribution of lesser quality, from which he cannot return. Our first discussion in this work connects known results of economic inequality and majorization to the probability theory of gambling and Martingales. We provide a simple proof that fair gambles cannot increase the Lorenz curve, and we also constructively demonstrate that any sequence of non-increasing Lorenz curves corresponds to at least one Martingale. We next consider the efficiency of gambles. If all fair gambles are available then one can move down the lattice of distributions defined by the Lorenz ordering. However, the step from one distribution to the next is not unique. Is there a sense of efficiency with which one can move down the Lorenz stream? One approach would be to minimize the average total volume of money placed on the table. In this case, it turns out that implementing part of the strategy using private randomness can help reduce the need for the casino's randomness, resulting in less money on the table that the casino cannot get its hands on.

Probability,Information Theory
Group Fairness Is Not Derivable From Justice: a Mathematical Proof

Nicolò Cangiotti,Michele Loi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.03880

2022-02-08

Abstract:We argue that an imperfect criminal law procedure cannot be group-fair, if 'group fairness' involves ensuring the same chances of acquittal or convictions to all innocent defendants independently of their morally arbitrary features. We show mathematically that only a perfect procedure (involving no mistake), a non-deterministic one, or a degenerate one (everyone or no one is convicted) can guarantee group fairness, in the general case. Following a recent proposal, we adopt a definition of group fairness, requiring that individuals who are equal in merit ought to have the same statistical chances of obtaining advantages and disadvantages, in a way that is statistically independent of any of their feature that does not count as merit. We explain by mathematical argument that the only imperfect procedures offering an a-priori guarantee of fairness in relation to all non-merit trait are lotteries or degenerate ones (i.e., everyone or no one is convicted). To provide a more intuitive point of view, we exploit an adjustment of the well-known ROC space, in order to represent all possible procedures in our model by a schematic diagram. The argument seems to be equally valid for all human procedures, provided they are imperfect. This clearly includes algorithmic decision-making, including decisions based on statistical predictions, since in practice all statistical models are error prone.

Computers and Society
Fairness Preferences and Tournament Incentives

WEI Guang-xing,PU Yong-jian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0334.2006.02.006

2006-01-01

Abstract:Behavioral contract theory tries to design optimal incentive contracts based on fairness prefe-rences, which mean that agents will pay attention to the comparisons of his payoff and others. In tournament contests, the fairness preferences on one hand will reduce efforts of agents because of participation constraint effect, and on the other hand will increase efforts of agents because of incentive compatibility constraint effect. But the participation constraint effect is the dominant power and the fairness preferences will reduce the efforts of agents and therefore the expected profit of principal. So it is very important for corporations to screen and evaluate precisely the fairness preferences of employees when designing the tournament system.
Gambling habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment

David L Dickinson,Parker Reid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10339-x

2024-08-27

Abstract:Little is known about how gamblers form probability assessments. This paper reports on a preregistered study that administered an incentivized Bayesian choice task to n = 465 self-reported gamblers and non-gamblers. The task elicits subjective probability assessments and allows one to estimate the degree to which distinct information sources are weighted in forming probability assessments. Our data failed to support our main hypotheses that experienced online gamblers would be more accurate than non-gamblers in estimating probabilities, that gamblers experienced in games of skill (e.g., poker) would be more accurate than gamblers experienced only in non-skill games (e.g., slots), that accuracy would differ by sex, or that information sources would be weighted differently across different participant groups. Exploratory analysis, however, revealed that gambling frequency predicted lower Bayesian accuracy, while cognitive reflection predicted higher accuracy. The decline in accuracy linked to self-reported gambling frequency was stronger for female participants. Decision modeling estimated a decreased weight place on new evidence (over base rate odds) for those participant groups who showed decreased accuracy, which suggests that a proper incorporation of new information is important for probability assessments. Our results link online gambling frequency to worse performance in the critical probability assessment skills that should benefit gambling success (i.e., in skill-based games). Additional research is needed to better understand the mechanism linking reported gambling frequency to probability assessment accuracy.
Treating People Equally at Interest Distribution:——A Theoretical Note on the Principle of Fairness

Jun-ping ZENG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-0150.2006.06.008

2006-01-01

Abstract:The main purpose of this article is to make a theoretical exposition on the principle of fairness.It shows: Firstly,fairness is treating people equally at the distribution of the social interests.Secondly,whether some method treats people equally at interest distribution or not,it can be justified by the reversible test.That is,if the reasonability of distribution is hold by both sides after the roles of both sides are exchanged,this method treats people equally at distribution and vice versa.Thirdly,individual justice and consistency of individual ethic normative are the sufficient and necessary condition for fair distribution.Finally,as for the variability of the specific reasonable distributional method,it is wrong to regard fairness as some distributional mode with invariable structure;that is to say,the criterion of fairness cannot be expressed by some mathematical formual.

Probability and Fairness

Belief Function to Probability: A Tradeoff Between Easy Decision-Making and High Risk

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

A random journey through the math of gambling

Long bet will lose: demystifying seemingly fair gambling via two-armed Futurity bandit

Demystifying the Two-Armed Futurity Bandit's Unfairness and Apparent Fairness

Online Gambling of Pure Chance: Wager Distribution, Risk Attitude, and Anomalous Diffusion

Gambling under unknown probabilities as a proxy for real world decisions under uncertainty

Benford’s Law and Number Selection in Fixed-Odds Numbers Game

Some Notes on Betting Commitment Distance in Evidence Theory

Impugning Randomness, Convincingly

Auditing Fairness by Betting

Equalised Odds is not Equal Individual Odds: Post-processing for Group and Individual Fairness

Judgment, Analysis and Inference on "fairness" in Distribution Results

Mathematical Problem on Lottery Ticket

How to Gamble If You're In a Hurry

A Lattice of Gambles

Group Fairness Is Not Derivable From Justice: a Mathematical Proof

Fairness Preferences and Tournament Incentives

Gambling habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment

Treating People Equally at Interest Distribution:——A Theoretical Note on the Principle of Fairness