Post by Pincho Paxton on Apr 14, 2016 19:58:43 GMT
I work for a betting shop, and you are told how to catch underage gamblers. In England the age that you can gamble is 18, so you are trying to catch age 17 and less. So a particular company that I work for came up with an idea to zone in on 17 year old's, and the idea is to ask anyone that looks 21 or less for an ID card.
So that sounds like a reasonable idea, but there is a flaw in the way that the idea is tested. To make sure that staff are looking for 21, or less a crew go around each betting shop, and in that crew are 20 year old people. The 20 year old's however are chosen because they look older than 21, and some look about 27. If they are not asked for ID you can get in trouble.
There is a problem in that process that nobody seems to realise, that the base age has been raised. The common thought is that you should not allow a 20 year old to pass without ID, but that is based on thinking that a person must look about 21. If however a person is allowed to look 27 then you are looking now for 17 year old people that look 27 not 21. I tried to explain this, but nobody seems to understand it.
For a betting shop to test its staff properly the fake crew need to be about 18 but look older, and that is as close as you can get to being accurate for looking for 21 year old's.
This could in fact be a genius test like the Monty Hall Problem which catches a lot of people out. The maths has been switched, but not many people can notice it.
You are probably thinking that the change in age group is too easy to spot, but believe me I nearly got sent home, because nobody could understand what I was talking about.
Pincho Paxton
So that sounds like a reasonable idea, but there is a flaw in the way that the idea is tested. To make sure that staff are looking for 21, or less a crew go around each betting shop, and in that crew are 20 year old people. The 20 year old's however are chosen because they look older than 21, and some look about 27. If they are not asked for ID you can get in trouble.
There is a problem in that process that nobody seems to realise, that the base age has been raised. The common thought is that you should not allow a 20 year old to pass without ID, but that is based on thinking that a person must look about 21. If however a person is allowed to look 27 then you are looking now for 17 year old people that look 27 not 21. I tried to explain this, but nobody seems to understand it.
For a betting shop to test its staff properly the fake crew need to be about 18 but look older, and that is as close as you can get to being accurate for looking for 21 year old's.
This could in fact be a genius test like the Monty Hall Problem which catches a lot of people out. The maths has been switched, but not many people can notice it.
You are probably thinking that the change in age group is too easy to spot, but believe me I nearly got sent home, because nobody could understand what I was talking about.
Pincho Paxton