Why so surprised at that result ?billvon wrote: ↑Nov 13 2019 11:20amIn this case since it's a closed population, and everyone starts with the same money, and the odds are exactly 50%, you'd expect personal wealth to wander around a bit but stay close to the starting value for each person. But after running such simulations long enough, you end up with a strange result - one person ends up with all the wealth and everyone else ends up with almost none. Which is exactly opposite what you'd expect.
You didnt need an economist or maths professor to tell you that if you have ever played any of the common board games such a Monopoly, Risk, etc or even the numerous card games Poker, BlackJack, etc.
There is always a concentration of money/power to a few players, and one winner eventually.
Either the one willing to take the most “risk “, or the one who knows the smartest way to play the game.
You could, “wipe the board” ,..rewrite the rules,.. even out the starting points, give everyone an even chance,..etc etc...
...but eventually the “winners” will start to emerge again, and the majority will be comparative losers, either financially or physically !
Look at any society. That is life with human nature,...and even in the animal kingdom too.