Went for my SMU economics interview today

[panda_hippo]

To further add on, since the true odds are equal no matter how. Isn't it ok to apply logical reasoning into your answer to add onto the first answer ( which is still bloody hell 1/3 no matter how ) Basically to score extra points to further prove why second is a better choice? Oh well

It is ok to add logical reasoning as long as it satisfies the mathematical proof. In this respect,no matter how you try to use "logic" to justify going 1st or 2nd,the thing that doesn't change is the true odds.

So it doesn't make any sense to say:"I will go first because my fate is in my hands" or "I will go second because there are more chances of the first player missing the white ball."

 

[PezDis]

Oh I saw that one. The one that takes into consideration where your opponent has an information edge over you.

That one is good answer.

The lawnium one is like make no sense lor. The argument is super flawed. I think what make ppl dulan is he is super stubborn and doesn't even consider what people are saying. Then hao lian and talk stuff like "I study finance" which is completely irrelevant cos what he stated was wrong mathematically. Then somemore try to argue and say "I try 5 times and i won 4/5 times!". Really face palm coming from a finance student. People tell him 5 times is a small sample and he got the cheek to retort yaya-ly "you heard of, I haven't got the time?"

Damn jia lat.

 

[Mythbusterman]

Oh I saw that one. The one that takes into consideration where your opponent has an information edge over you.

That one is good answer.

The lawnium one is like make no sense lor. The argument is super flawed. I think what make ppl dulan is he is super stubborn and doesn't even consider what people are saying. Then hao lian and talk stuff like "I study finance" which is completely irrelevant cos what he stated was wrong mathematically. Then somemore try to argue and say "I try 5 times and i won 4/5 times!". Really face palm coming from a finance student. People tell him 5 times is a small sample and he got the cheek to retort yaya-ly "you heard of, I haven't got the time?"

Damn jia lat.

yea that was at least the answer kinda to be expected from a future undergrad mah

 

[LokiTay]

It is ok to add logical reasoning as long as it satisfies the mathematical proof. In this respect,no matter how you try to use "logic" to justify going 1st or 2nd,the thing that doesn't change is the true odds.

So it doesn't make any sense to say:"I will go first because my fate is in my hands" or "I will go second because there are more chances of the first player missing the white ball."

I mention in my earliest explanation that the true odds are still 1/3. But i went on to choose 2nd pick and the explanation subsequently.

instead of just concluding with the maths and full stop there. You will still need to make a decision which choice to pick. In the real world if your finance/economist give u the answer that both choice lead to the same figures/outcome. Will you challenge them which is the better choice?

Stop just concluding within the box with maths theory.

No wonder most of them will forever jus grind out results and analyze the data before submitting to management for their decision.

 

[frayed]

I mention in my earliest explanation that the true odds are still 1/3. But i went on to choose 2nd pick and the explanation subsequently.

instead of just concluding with the maths and full stop there. You will still need to make a decision which choice to pick. In the real world if your finance/economist give u the answer that both choice lead to the same figures/outcome. Will you challenge them which is the better choice?

Stop just concluding within the box with maths theory.

No wonder most of them will forever jus grind out results and analyze the data before submitting to management for their decision.

to be honest, you need the math to give you a starting point. once you have the mathematical theoretical expected result, then you need to consider whether the implicit assumptions (risk neutral, no private information, et cetera) that you need to make in order to use the math result hold, and if not, how it will bias or change the result that was calculated.

in other words, those assumptions, if they do not hold - how will the preferences of the players change? for example, like others have mentioned, they might go first because they have private information, so on and so forth. finally, then consider if there are other solutions to the game that are not mentioned explicitly in the game, like sharing.

i don't think this violates what panda_hippo was stating, because then the game has changed in some way, and you do not violate the original mathematical proof of the original game since the game is different. what is important, though, is to explicitly state that the game has changed and justify why this change is reasonable. however, you still need to start from the basis of the theoretical expected result.

 

[panda_hippo]

I mention in my earliest explanation that the true odds are still 1/3. But i went on to choose 2nd pick and the explanation subsequently.

instead of just concluding with the maths and full stop there. You will still need to make a decision which choice to pick. In the real world if your finance/economist give u the answer that both choice lead to the same figures/outcome. Will you challenge them which is the better choice?

Stop just concluding within the box with maths theory.

No wonder most of them will forever jus grind out results and analyze the data before submitting to management for their decision.

Economists are trained to be objective and say things as it is. Why deviate from facts and then make recommendations when there are no clear advantage to either options?

As TS already mentioned,the correct answer is that either options make no difference,and that providing additional recommendations are very much redundant. It is akin to asking a person to guess the winning 4D number and then using "logic" to justify his position:"I think 0000 will be the winning number because it hasn't appear for a long time."

Gambler's fallacy much?

 

[Mythbusterman]

to be honest, you need the math to give you a starting point. once you have the mathematical theoretical expected result, then you need to consider whether the implicit assumptions (risk neutral, no private information, et cetera) that you need to make in order to use the math result hold, and if not, how it will bias or change the result that was calculated.

in other words, those assumptions, if they do not hold - how will the preferences of the players change? for example, like others have mentioned, they might go first because they have private information, so on and so forth. finally, then consider if there are other solutions to the game that are not mentioned explicitly in the game, like sharing.

i don't think this violates what panda_hippo was stating, because then the game has changed in some way, and you do not violate the original mathematical proof of the original game since the game is different. what is important, though, is to explicitly state that the game has changed and justify why this change is reasonable. however, you still need to start from the basis of the theoretical expected result.

this is the correct answer! thumbs up

 

[LokiTay]

to be honest, you need the math to give you a starting point. once you have the mathematical theoretical expected result, then you need to consider whether the implicit assumptions (risk neutral, no private information, et cetera) that you need to make in order to use the math result hold, and if not, how it will bias or change the result that was calculated.

in other words, those assumptions, if they do not hold - how will the preferences of the players change? for example, like others have mentioned, they might go first because they have private information, so on and so forth. finally, then consider if there are other solutions to the game that are not mentioned explicitly in the game, like sharing.

i don't think this violates what panda_hippo was stating, because then the game has changed in some way, and you do not violate the original mathematical proof of the original game since the game is different. what is important, though, is to explicitly state that the game has changed and justify why this change is reasonable. however, you still need to start from the basis of the theoretical expected result.

Since when is;

1st pick = 33% to hit white ball, 66% to fail = assumption?

2nd pick = 66% to have ur turn, with only 2 balls to pick = assumption?

LOL

 

[frayed]

Since when is;

1st pick = 33% to hit white ball, 66% to fail = assumption?

2nd pick = 66% to have ur turn, with only 2 balls to pick = assumption?

LOL

those figures hold for you if you do not have other information. but do they necessarily hold for the other players? that is one implicit assumption there already. maybe the other players have some kind of method (econ speak: technology, maybe?) that allows them to get the white ball with 50% probability rather than 33%, like some weird stephen chow movie like that one where he is a trickster with weird gadgets. or maybe the other players are stephen chow and chow yun fatt - gambling king, got special eyesight or sixth sense? in order to know these numbers, then we need to assume complete information about each players abilities. usually we do not, so we assume that everyone has the same ability.

if so, then your payoff in the second period would be (0.5)*(0.5), which would be less than the 0.33 you would get if you went in the first period, and vice versa. so you could then say that if that implicit assumption that all players face the same probabilities is not valid, then if the other players have some way of increasing their probability of getting white above the standard level of 33%, you will want to go first, or if they have some impaired ability, you will want to go second (if say they only got 10% chance of getting in the first round).

similarly, if it is you who has a technological advantage or disadvantage, then the outcome is obvious from extrapolating the above logic/example. you can also consider what if you have to pay for the additional technology, then mention in general about how to set up your choice function. like what is your expected payoff if you pay for the technology and go first or go second... et cetera.

got a lot of nice ways to spin this one la. can smoke one! but in the end, still dependent on the original result.

 

[CSI.Hippo]

I work in a ministry so I must be a minister liao

 

[LokiTay]

Economists are trained to be objective and say things as it is. Why deviate from facts and then make recommendations when there are no clear advantage to either options?

As TS already mentioned,the correct answer is that either options make no difference,and that providing additional recommendations are very much redundant. It is akin to asking a person to guess the winning 4D number and then using "logic" to justify his position:"I think 0000 will be the winning number because it hasn't appear for a long time."

Gambler's fallacy much?

When did my explanation deviate from facts? Kindly explain.

Since either options make no difference and it doesn't aid me in making my decision, whats the point in ending it there? Then the fact is this question or hiring you(Economist) is redundant.

I think u are comparing apply to zeus with 3balls vs 4d.

 

[LokiTay]

those figures hold for you if you do not have other information. but do they necessarily hold for the other players? that is one implicit assumption there already. maybe the other players have some kind of method (econ speak: technology, maybe?) that allows them to get the white ball with 50% probability rather than 33%, like some weird stephen chow movie like that one where he is a trickster with weird gadgets. or maybe the other players are stephen chow and chow yun fatt - gambling king, got special eyesight or sixth sense? in order to know these numbers, then we need to assume complete information about each players abilities. usually we do not, so we assume that everyone has the same ability.

if so, then your payoff in the second period would be (0.5)*(0.33), which would be less than the 0.33 you would get if you went in the first period, and vice versa. so you could then say that if that implicit assumption that all players face the same probabilities is not valid, then if the other players have some way of increasing their probability of getting white above the standard level of 33%, you will want to go first, or if they have some impaired ability, you will want to go second (if say they only got 10% chance of getting in the first round).

similarly, if it is you who has a technological advantage or disadvantage, then the outcome is obvious from extrapolating the above logic/example. you can also consider what if you have to pay for the additional technology, then mention in general about how to set up your choice function. like what is your expected payoff if you pay for the technology and go first or go second... et cetera.

got a lot of nice ways to spin this one la. can smoke one! but in the end, still dependent on the original result.

Thats assumption already. Can you please do not deviate from facts started by the TS?

 

[Gummyboy]

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS:











The 1st guy to get it.

Reasons:

1. Probability is the same, so it does not matter.
2. Being the first one, SHOWS THAT I HAVE INITIATIVE.


Job Interview Success PWN the rest of the participants! FTW.

 

[frayed]

Thats assumption already. Can you please do not deviate from facts started by the TS?

ts assumed it implicitly as well. you can see for yourself that the ts did not mention this in the original post either, so it is not stated that the probability of getting the white ball is the same for all players. furthermore, his solution is still dependent on the assumption that the probability is the same for all players since he worked out the probability afterwards as well.

 

[yingxiongge]

game over ....

 

[panda_hippo]

When did my explanation deviate from facts? Kindly explain.

Since either options make no difference and it doesn't aid me in making my decision, whats the point in ending it there? Then the fact is this question or hiring you(Economist) is redundant.

I think u are comparing apply to zeus with 3balls vs 4d.

The fact is: All options hold the same chance,so the order doesn't matter
Your logic is: All options hold the same chance,but you try to prove that one of them is superior to the other

How does your logic not deviate from the fact that either options have statistically the same chance of occurring (and hence none are superior to each other)?

 

[K|muRa^84]

loki's argument is deceptively logical

1. picking 2nd assuming that 1st guy picks black means u have 50% chance (which is higher than 33% ie picking 1st)
2. 1st guy picks black more than half the time....so that's great!

 

[chiBABOM!]

lidat also argue so long.

i'll sit on the guy's lap. ask him gimme the whatever key whatever ball they are all trying to pick.

 

[r0t1prata]

lidat also argue so long.

i'll sit on the guy's lap. ask him gimme the whatever key whatever ball they are all trying to pick.

/thread 10chibabom

 

[macdeesmac]

went for SMU interview last time --> got offered on the spot. truestory