Mathematics and The Price Is Right

I just read a very entertaining article on the use of game theory for improving contestants’ odds of winning the various games on the long-running television game show “The Price Is Right.” Quoting from the article:

On a crisp November day eight years ago, I took the only sick day of my four years of high school. I was laid up with an awful fever, and annoyed that I was missing geometry class, which at the time was the highlight of my day. I flipped on the television in the hope of finding some distraction from my woes, but what I found only made me more upset: A contestant named Margie who was in the process of completely bungling her six chances of making it out of Contestants’ Row on The Price is Right.

Many contestants fail to win anything on The Price is Right, of course. But as I watched the venerable game show that morning, it quickly became clear to me that most contestants haven’t thought through the structure of the game they’re so excited to be playing. It didn’t bother me that Margie didn’t know how much a stainless steel oven range costs; that’s a relatively obscure fact. It bothered me, as a budding mathematician, that she failed to use basic game theory to help her advance. If she’d applied a few principles of game theory—the science of decision-making used by economists and generals—she could have planted a big kiss on Bob Barker’s cheek, and maybe have gone home with … a new car! Instead, she went home empty-handed…

To help future contestants avoid Margie’s fate, I decided to make a handy cheat sheet explaining how to win The Price Is Right—not just the Contestants’ Row segment, but all of its many pricing games. This guide, which conveniently fits on the front and back of an 8.5-by-11-inch piece of paper, does not rely on the prices of items.

The full article can be found at http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/11/winning_the_price_is_right_strategies_for_contestants_row_plinko_and_the.html.

Mathematics and College Football

For years, various algorithms (derisively called “the computers” by sports commentators) have been used to rank college football teams. The source of derision is usually quite simple to explain: most of these algorithms are too hard to explain in layman’s terms, and therefore they are mocked.

For both its simplicity and its ability to provide reasonable rankings, my favorite algorithm is “Random Walker Rankings,” published at http://rwrankings.blogspot.com. Here is a concise description of this ranking system (quoted from http://rwrankings.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_archive.html):

We’ve all experienced befuddlement upon perusing the NCAA Division I-A college football
Bowl Championship Series (BCS) standings, because of the seemingly divine inspiration that must have been incorporated into their determination. The relatively small numbers of games between a large number of teams makes any ranking immediately suspect because of the dearth of head-to-head information. Perhaps you’ve even wondered if a bunch of monkeys could have ranked the football teams as well as the expert coaches and sportswriters polls and the complicated statistical ranking algorithms.

We had these thoughts, so we set out to test this hypothesis, although with simulated monkeys (random walkers) rather than real ones.

Each of our simulated “monkeys” gets a single vote to cast for the “best” team in the nation, making their decisions based on only one simple guideline: They periodically look up the win-loss outcome of a single game played by their favorite team, and flip a weighted coin to determine whether to change their allegiance to the other team. In order to make this process even modestly reasonable, this random decision is made so that there is higher probability that the monkey’s allegiance and vote will go with the team that won the head-to-head contest. For instance, the weighting of the coin might be chosen so that 75% (say) of the time the monkey changes his vote to go with the winner of the game, meaning only a 25% chance of voting for the loser.

The monkey starts by voting for a randomly chosen team. Each monkey then meanders around a network which describes the collection of teams, randomly changing allegiance from one team to another along connections representing games played between the two teams that year. This network is graphically depicted in the figure here, with the monkeys—okay, technically one is a gorilla—not so happily lent to us by Ben Mucha (inset). It’s a simple process: if the outcome of the weighted coin flip indicates that he should be casting his vote for the opposing team, the monkey stops cheerleading for the old team and moves to the site in the network representing his new favorite team. While we let the monkeys change their minds over and over again—indeed, a single monkey voter will forever be changing his vote in this scheme—the percentage of votes cast for each football team quickly stabilizes. We thereby obtain rankings each week of the season and at the end of the season, based on the games played to that point of the season, by looking at the fraction of monkeys that vote for each team…

The virtue of this ranking system lies in its relative ease of explanation. Its performance is arguably on par with the expert polls and (typically more complicated) computer algorithms employed by the BCS. Can a bunch of monkeys rank football teams as well as the systems in use now? Perhaps they can.

Using this algorithm, here’s the current ranking of college football teams as of today. (With great pride, I note that Stanford is ranked #4.) These rankings certainly don’t exactly match the latest AP poll or BCS rankings, but they’re also still reasonable and defensible.

Hollywood Hates Math

Dan Meyer spliced together scenes from various movies where knowledge of mathematics is denigrated. Since a big part of my job is instilling confidence in my students that they can indeed succeed in my classes, it’s a little depressing to see that I have a big opponent in popular culture.

This video has the occasional PG language and innuendo, while I prefer to keep my classes rated G to every extent possible. Some time ago, Dan was kind enough to post the original movie sources for this clip, and someday I might edit down this clip to something that I would be comfortable showing in class.