The Quantitative Peace

Poker is a game of skill

The New York Times (this may cost you one of your monthly alloted articles) reports on a new article by Levitt and Miles that argues that poker is a game of skill and not a game of chance.  The policy-relevant implications for the study deals with legalization - several prohibitions against poker are codified with terminology that prohibits gambling and randomized lotteries while allowing for skilled based gaming. The authors track a set of known players from the 2010 World Series of Poker (WSOP).  The study indicates that "good" poker players do get returns on their tournament buyins (seen as an investment) while the unknown players are more likely to lose money during the event.  The data includes 57 tournaments that run during the course of the WSOP (there are several side tournaments besides the main event).

Naturally, for those who are concerned about the endogeneity between the tracked players and their 2010 performance, the players are picked based on pre-2010 WSOP data - they were either ranked highly previous to the tournament (in poker magazines or online) or did well at the 2009 WSOP.  Naturally, if poker was entirely based around randomization, your previous performance ought to have no influence on your next tournament. For those of us who are poker players, the results should not be too surprising; however, having evidence of skilled players doing well should be reassuring.  Perhaps, also, it will allow us to hear less bad beat stories (stories about opposing players getting lucky against the story teller).

As an aside, footnote 10 indicates who not to be at the WSOP: "The biggest loser in the 2010 WSOP paid in $252,000 in entry fees, but earned only $24,000 in prize money."

Abstract:

In determining the legality of online poker – a multibillion dollar industry – courts have relied heavily on the issue of whether or not poker is a game of skill. Using newly available data, we analyze that question by examining the performance in the 2010 World Series of Poker of a group of poker players identified as being highly skilled prior to the start of the events. Those players identified a priori as being highly skilled achieved an average return on investment of over 30 percent, compared to a -15 percent for all other players. This large gap in returns is strong evidence in support of the idea that
poker is a game of skill.

The NBER paper can be found here.

 

Facts and Stuff on the Distributions of Income and Race in America

Via Andrew Gelman at the Monkey Cage, an article on this recent Gallup poll regarding people's income and their perceptions of income distributions, tax burdens, etc. 

The thrust of the article is that there are some disparities between where people fall in the overall income distribution and their perceptions of how the tax burden should be distributed---Not my normal thing, but interesting nevertheless.

More below...

Stupid people doing their stupid jobs

Dan Drezner has a good post that is worth a read.  Again, I think the issue he's discussing raises the question on how some of these lower-level actors fit into the policymaking process.  This piece also sort of raises the issue of how these actors should fit into the broader public discourse over policies as well.  But I suppose my advice to Senator Graham would be, if you're not prepared for, or don't want to hear the answer, then don't ask the question.  Unless you're purposely trying to bait the DNI to bash him, that is.  I agree that it's ridiculous to feign this sort of outrage and demand the resignation of a public official who is---dare I say it?  Actually attempting to do his job in an unbiased manner?

As an extension of this issue, I have to wonder what sort of political capital there is to be gained from publicly attacking the DNI in this way?  Does Graham impress voters?  Colleagues? 

Sounds About Right

courtesy: www.smbc-comics.com

Rumsfeld Interview

Given this piece from the other day, I thought this was an appropriate followup.  Daily Show fans have probably already seen his interview from last night with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, but for those who have not I would recommend it.  Rumsfeld was unquestionably one of the most important architects of the Iraq war, and I think this interview fits in nicely with the discussion from the other day regarding the influence of unelected actors in the policymaking process.  I found it particularly interesting how Rumsfeld acknowledges the important role played by presidential advisors in this process, but really seems to shift accountability away from the Defense Department and onto the State Department and the non-descript "intelligence community" (of which the DOD is an incredibly important member).  

It's worth noting Rumseld's comments regarding his previous remarks on "going to war with the military you have, not the one you wish you had."  I think it's easy to dismiss this comment as another of Rumsfeld's  witticisms, but I think the question it poses is important and worth exploring.  How much do we really know about how the decisions of an administration's predecessor constrain the ability of the current administration to act in certain ways?  If we are to take Rumsfeld at his word--not much.  He seems to be implying that the capabilities of the state don't factor into decisions related to the use of force, or at least that they only matter to a certain extent.  Policy objectives come first--capabilities matter second. 

Some of his remarks also suggest some interesting things insofar as the learning process of the miltiary/DOD is concerned.  Is it preferable to invest significant amounts of money and resources up front to address possible shortfalls?  Or is it better to go to war, knowing that capabilities are less than optimal, but that investments in updating or upgrading capabilities will be more efficiently and effectively applied after more information is gained through battlefield encounters?  Rather, that it is impossible to know what the optimal allocation of funds is until more information is gained? 

Thoughts?  

Quick Post

So it's been a little while since I've posted here (very busy times these are).  Anyway, I wanted to link to this post by Phil Arena over at his blog.  Phil discusses how his views on various topics related to IR have changed over the past few years.  I agree with a lot of what he has to say on these issues--I think a lot of what IR scholars focus on, to the extent that we're interested in the domestic forces generating foreign policy outcomes, tend to place too much stock in the qualities we typically assume to characterize democracies and autocracies.  I also agree that economic forces play a huge role in shaping the incentives of political actors--particularly the elites that Arena mentions. 

CRACK

I found this link via Andrew Gelman's blog the other day:

CRACK Mapmaking software for Mac

I haven't had much of a chance to play with it, but it looks like it could be useful.  I've had a few instances in class this semester where I've wanted to make some maps of the US to illustrate various points, but alas, have not known how to do so.  Rather, I've wanted to make customizable maps, but have not known how.  It seems like this program is pretty simple to use--just drag and drop a CSV file with the relevant data onto the map.  It also appears to be able to perform some basic data manipulation as well.  When all is as you wish it to be, you can export an image file of your customized map to incorporate into documents, presentations, etc.  

As the link suggests, this appears to be only for Mac users at the moment.  I'm sure there must be some freeware out there that accomplishes the same thing for PC users as well.  I'm generally behind the curve on this kind of thing, so if anyone is aware of the existence of such software please post a link in the comments section.  Also, if anyone is aware of similar software that can be used at the global level that would also be most useful.   

Losses Less than Expected?

As the 2010 election draws near, many political pundits have predicted that the Democrats will face significant losses in House elections (for a nice summary of election forecasts see here and here). Some have even suggested that the losses will be enough for Democrats to lose majority control over the House. Commentators on CNN have even began discussing how Republicans and Democrats will share power in Washington after the election.  

Although it seems highly likely that Democrats will face losses in both chambers in the midterm election (as this is usually the case in midterm elections for members of the President's party), the extent of the losses may be slightly less than expected. A new study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press suggests that polls that do not call cell phones may be misrepresenting how well Republicans will do in this year's upcoming election. While most national polls do call cell phones, the state and local polls generally do not. Given the study's results, predictions that use state and local polls in predicting this year's election results may be overestimating how well the Republicans will do.

More after the jump...

The Incredibly Depressing Mega Millions Lottery Simulator

A simple simulator for the twice weekly lottery:

It is really hard to win the Mega Millions lottery. So hard that it can be difficult to comprehend what long odds confront its players.

Why not try for free on this Mega Millions lottery simulator? You'll be able to try the same numbers over and over, simulating playing twice a week for a year or 10. You'll never win.

Simulating the game for 10 years, two games a week, you will get the result of each draw and a conclusion like:

You played 1040 games of Mega Millions. It cost $1040. You won $58.

Will have to save this for course that includes probability.

You are not so smart

Matt at the Harvard Social Science Statistics Blog provides a link to the blog "You are not so smart" with an emphasis on its newest post discussing randomness and causality.  While it is impossible to debunk every pattern someone draws out of coincidences (disconfirming evidence is rarely enough), it provides a good read of the historic coincidences and the false patterns people create from them - including the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, Nostradamus, and the Titan(ic).  A new blog has entered the RSS reader.