> perhaps several categories in between. Then, for each category, if
> you find yourself wasting a lot of time verifying correct assumptions
> you can cut back on the frequency for that category. Likewise, if you
> discover you are wrong more often than you would like, increase the
> frequence for that category. At least I think this is what I have
> been doing unconsciously.
To me the most appealing thing is to explore new horizons and I agree
that you need a firm foundation in order to be able to do so. I guess
what is necessary is balance. (Not very profound but sometimes I need to
remind myself of the obvious)
> Neither, your goal is to maximize your winnings. You cannot do that if you
> spend all your time experimenting to see which arm is better. And, obviously,
> you can't maximize winnings without experimenting at all (i.e. just picking
> an arm at random and using it exclusively). Half the time you will luck out
> and pick the best arm, but your expected winnings are suboptimal. So there
> has to be an optimal tradeoff between experimenting and exploiting the
> knowledge you gain.
But are the odds stacked against you like they would in a real casino? If
so then the best strategy would be to walk away with the money in you
pocket.
> Here's an interesting application: Say you want to get married but you are
> unwilling to get a divorce. How many women should you date before proposing?
You should set standards to be met by the prospective mate. After dating
a sample of women you may be able to determine how closely your standards
are being met and have information to reevaluate the standards that you set.
Duane