Capital Redistribution Brings Wealth by Parrondo’s Paradox

Capital Redistribution Brings Wealth By Parrondo's Paradox

Parrondo’s Capital and History Dependent Games

It has been shown that it is possible to construct two games that when played individually lose, but alternating randomly or deterministically between them can win. This apparent paradox has been dubbed “Parrondo’s paradox.” The original games are capital dependent, which means that the winning and losing probabilities depend on how much capital the player currently has. Recently, new games hav...

Parrondo’s paradox via redistribution of wealth∗

In Toral’s games, at each turn one member of an ensemble of N ≥ 2 players is selected at random to play. He plays either game A′, which involves transferring one unit of capital to a second randomly chosen player, or game B, which is an asymmetric game of chance whose rules depend on the player’s current capital, and which is fair or losing. Game A′ is fair (with respect to the ensemble’s total...

Second Parrondo's Paradox in Scale Free Networks

Parrondo’s paradox occurs in sequences of games in which a winning expectation value of a payoff may be obtained by playing two games in a random order, even though each game in the sequence may be lost when played individually. Several variations of Parrondo’s games apparently with the same paradoxical property have been introduced [5]; history dependence, one dimensional line, two dimensional...

Inefficiency of voting in Parrondo games

We study a modification of the so-called Parrondo’s paradox where a large number of individuals choose the game they want to play by voting. We show that it can be better for the players to vote randomly than to vote according to their own benefit in one turn. The former yields a winning tendency while the latter results in steady losses. An explanation of this behaviour is given by noting that...