In economy, you find out that whenever "Gentleman Jim" bets, he tends to win 70% of the time, rather than the 49% everyone else gets. Now, depending on policy, you either:
a) forbid jim to play
b) readjust jim's token-to-money conversion ratio so he is on par with other players
c) invest your money with jim
Note, though, that this being a zero sum game, anything other than (a) will bankrupt the house....
Nassim Taleb addresses this sort of thinking. He calls it a "ludic fallacy", which is the over application of games to our down detriment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
Comments
On the contrary. Taking your analogy further:
In economy, you find out that whenever "Gentleman Jim" bets, he tends to win 70% of the time, rather than the 49% everyone else gets. Now, depending on policy, you either:
a) forbid jim to play b) readjust jim's token-to-money conversion ratio so he is on par with other players c) invest your money with jim
Note, though, that this being a zero sum game, anything other than (a) will bankrupt the house....
Nassim Taleb addresses this sort of thinking. He calls it a "ludic fallacy", which is the over application of games to our down detriment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
In what sense is this a zero sum game?
Sure if economics could be reduced to gambling it is zero-sum but betting in economics is betting on those who will create value(ideally).