• The aggressive strategy: The player strides confidently up to the table and places
a single bet of $30.00 on the first spin of the wheel. He either wins or loses. If he loses
he smiles bravely and leaves. If he wins he smiles triumphantly, pockets his $60.00,
and leaves. With this strategy his chances of winning are 18/38 or 47.37%.

• The conservative strategy: The player walks hesitantly up to the table and places
a bet of $10.00 on the first spin of the wheel. Whatever happens, he places another
bet of $10.00 on the next spin of the wheel. He continues in this way, betting $10.00
on each spin of the wheel, until he either reaches his goal of $60.00 or he goes broke.
This is an example of a common kind of choice that people often face. For example,
investors must often decide whether to place all their money in a single investment or to
diversify their holdings, placing smaller amounts in each of several investments.


Do you think the player is more likely to win using the aggressive strategy,
using the conservative strategy, or that it makes no difference which strategy is used?

See PDF in attachment.

I wll likely get shot down in flames here from a maths perspective but I think the player who walks up to the table and puts it all on the first spin is more than likely a recreational gambler.

p.s. I do have to justify my years of research somehow.