Can Two Wrongs Make a Right? Coin-Tossing Games and Parrondo’s Paradox

  title={Can Two Wrongs Make a Right? Coin-Tossing Games and Parrondo’s Paradox},
  author={Ora E. Percus and Jerome K. Percus},
  journal={The Mathematical Intelligencer},
Background On frequent occasions, a logical oddity comes along, which attracts a sizeable audience. One of the most recent is known as Parrondo's paradox [5, 6]. Briefly, it is the observation that random selection (or merely alternation) of the playing of two asymptotically losing games* can result in a winning game. Conceptually similar situations involving only the processing of statistical data are not novel. What has been referred to as Simpson's paradox [8] is typified by this scenario… 
Parrondo’s Principle
Parrondo's Paradox states that two games, each with a negative expectation, can be combined via deterministic or nondeterministic mixing of the games to produce a positive expectation. For Parrondo's
Randomly chosen chaotic maps can give rise to nearly ordered behavior
Abstract Parrondo’s paradox [J.M.R. Parrondo, G.P. Harmer, D. Abbott, New paradoxical games based on Brownian ratchets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000), 5226–5229] (see also [O.E. Percus, J.K. Percus, Can
How strong can the Parrondo effect be?
It is shown that if the parameters of the games are allowed to be arbitrary, subject to a fairness constraint, and if the two games A and B are played in an arbitrary periodic sequence, then the rate of profit can not only be positive, but can also be arbitrarily close to 1 (i.e. 100%).
Limit theorems for Parrondo's paradox
That there exist two losing games that can be combined, either by random mixture or by nonrandom alternation, to form a winning game is known as Parrondo's paradox. We establish a strong law of large
Parrondo's paradox
Since coming to the attention of the general news media several years ago, the paradoxical combination of two losing games into a winning game by J. M. R. Parrondo has been the subject of numerous
Chaos Control and Anticontrol of Complex Systems via Parrondo’s Game
In this chapter, we prove analytically and numerically aided by computer simulations, that the Parrondo game can be implemented numerically to control and anticontrol chaos of a large class of
Discrete–time ratchets, the Fokker–Planck equation and Parrondo's paradox
Parrond's games manifest the apparent paradox where losing strategies can be combined to win and have generated significant multidisciplinary interest in the literature. Here we review two recent
Parrondian Games in Discrete Dynamic Systems
The method described in this chapter is based on the Parrondo’s paradox, where two losing games can be alternated, yielding a winning game, and can be used as a stabilization method to control chaotic dynamics.
Can two chaotic systems give rise to order
Abstract The recently discovered Parrondo's paradox claims that two losing games can result, under random or periodic alternation of their dynamics, in a winning game: “losing + losing = winning”. In
Paradoxical games and a minimal model for a Brownian motor
I give an extended analysis of the very simple game that I previously published that shows the paradoxical behavior whereby two losing games randomly combine to form a winning game. The game, modeled


Parrondo's paradox
We introduce Parrondo’s paradox that involves games of chance. We consider two fair gambling games, A and B, both of which can be made to have a losing expectation by changing a biasing parameter « .
Game theory: Losing strategies can win by Parrondo's paradox
This work models the behaviour of two losing gambling games such that, when they are played one after the other, they becoming winning, a striking new result in game theory called Parrondo's paradox.
The paradox of Parrondo's games
  • G. Harmer, D. Abbott, P. Taylor
  • Mathematics
    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
  • 2000
We introduce Parrondo's paradox that involves games of chance. We consider two fair games, A and B, both of which can be made to lose by changing a biasing parameter. An apparently paradoxical
Decisions and elections
It is not uncommon to be frustrated by the outcome of an election or a decision in voting, law, economics, engineering, and other fields. Does this 'bad' result reflect poor data or poorly informed
New paradoxical games based on brownian ratchets
New games where all the rules depend only on the history of the game and not on the capital are presented, which significantly increases the parameter space for which the effect operates.
Decisions and elections : explaining the unexpected
1. Do we get what we expect 2. Arrow's theorem 3. Explanations and examples 4. What else can go wrong? 5. More perversities 6. A search for resolutions 7. From Sen to prisoners and prostitution 8.
Randomly rattled ratchets
SummaryRatchets are anisotropic periodic potentials. Particles subject to ratchet forces and simultaneously to thermal and nonthermal fluctuations can rectify the nonequilibrium noise, thereby
Playing Both Sides
Stochastic processes