Breaking Dice

 

So Stephen and I have been playing games for ages. We have also developed a myriad of tiny mini-games over the years. Most of these were the result of jokes and boredom induced by long car rides to cons, the delirium of conventions, and between games strokes of ’brilliance.’

Brilliance is probably not be the correct word.

We are back to that moment in a broader picture within the company. I’m itching to do something new and Stephen has pretty much thrown me a bone to gnaw on, telling me to come up with something. To wit, I am digging into my ancient scribbles, recalling conversations, and doing a little research.

When I say a little research, I mean to say none.

So I just recall snippets of imperfect knowledge. It may also just be made up in a fevered imagination. I recall having read that to stay in a game, the player only needs to win 30% of the time. This keeps them coming back to the table (casino research). That means people can lose 70% of the time and feel like a success. This has something to do with a rather less well-known physicists named Benford, though can’t recall the exact connection. But what I can tell you is that 70/30 observation is well known in the investing world as well.

So what does investing in the stock market have to do with designing a game? Nothing really except to say, all roads lead to roaming in Rome.

How is that for some random neural connections.

PS. The IRS also relies on Benfornd's law to detect fraud.