University of Warsaw - Central Authentication System
Strona główna

The rational gambler: what the philosopher can learn from the gambler

General data

Course ID: 3800-RH24-M
Erasmus code / ISCED: 08.1 Kod klasyfikacyjny przedmiotu składa się z trzech do pięciu cyfr, przy czym trzy pierwsze oznaczają klasyfikację dziedziny wg. Listy kodów dziedzin obowiązującej w programie Socrates/Erasmus, czwarta (dotąd na ogół 0) – ewentualne uszczegółowienie informacji o dyscyplinie, piąta – stopień zaawansowania przedmiotu ustalony na podstawie roku studiów, dla którego przedmiot jest przeznaczony. / (0223) Philosophy and ethics The ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) code has been designed by UNESCO.
Course title: The rational gambler: what the philosopher can learn from the gambler
Name in Polish: Racjonalny hazardzista - czego filozof może dowiedzieć się od gracza?
Organizational unit: Faculty of Philosophy
Course groups: (in Polish) Wykłady monograficzne (studia stacjonarne, filozofia)
ECTS credit allocation (and other scores): 2.00 Basic information on ECTS credits allocation principles:
  • the annual hourly workload of the student’s work required to achieve the expected learning outcomes for a given stage is 1500-1800h, corresponding to 60 ECTS;
  • the student’s weekly hourly workload is 45 h;
  • 1 ECTS point corresponds to 25-30 hours of student work needed to achieve the assumed learning outcomes;
  • weekly student workload necessary to achieve the assumed learning outcomes allows to obtain 1.5 ECTS;
  • work required to pass the course, which has been assigned 3 ECTS, constitutes 10% of the semester student load.
Language: Polish
Type of course:

elective monographs
Prerequisites (description):

(in Polish) Student ma zaliczone zajęcia z Logiki I (lub równoważne)
Short description:

The lecture will be devoted to the analysis of decision making criteria in specific gambling situations. Using the example of roulette, Blackjack and poker, among others, we will analyze various possible strategies and consider their rationality. The resulting conclusions will be generalized and their broader philosophical meaning will be demonstrated.
Full description:

The lecture will be devoted to the analysis of decision making criteria in specific gambling situations. Using the example of roulette, Blackjack and poker, among others, we will analyze various possible strategies and consider their rationality. The resulting conclusions will be generalized and their broader philosophical meaning will be demonstrated.
Bibliography: (in Polish)

Buchdahl J. 2016 Science, Psychology & Philosophy of Gambling. Oldcastle Books.

Epstein, R. 2013, The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic,Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

Fiedler, I., Rock, J.-P. 2009. Quantifying skill in games—Theory and empirical evidence for poker. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 13, 50–57.

Kucharski, A. 2016, The perfect bet: how science and math are taking the luck out of gambling, Basic Books.

Mazalov V. V., Makhankov I. S., 2001, On a model of two-card poker, Int. J. Math. Game Theory Algebra 11, 97-105.

Rotando, L.M., Thorp, E.O., 1992. The Kelly criterion and the stock market. American Mathematical Monthly, 922-931.

Sklansky D. and Malmuth M., 1999, Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players, Two Plus Two Publishing.

Thorp, E.O., 1969. Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. Review of the International Statistical Institute 37, 273-293.

von Neumann J., Morgenstern O., 1944, Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton University Press.
Learning outcomes:

After completing the course the student:

• Knows the basic ways to evaluate the rationality of decisions;

• Knows the various definitions of random events.;

• Knows the properties of probabilistic models used to describe gambling games;

• Applies the language of probability calculus and decision theory to the analysis of selected philosophical problems;

• Knows how to evaluate the correctness of an inference;

• Knows how to analyze complex philosophical arguments, identify the theses and assumptions that comprise them, and establish logical relationships between theses;

• Is ready to identify the knowledge and skills he possesses;

• Is ready to recognize gaps in his knowledge and skills and to look for opportunities to remedy these gaps;

• Is willing to accept new ideas and possibly change his position in the light of available data and arguments.
Assessment methods and assessment criteria:

The prerequisite for passing the course is solving the tasks placed on the COME platform assigned to each lecture and passing the final test. Each class will begin with a test on which you will need to answer one of five questions given earlier, relating to the previous lecture. Persons who obtain very good results in the tests will be exempt from the final test. The final credit will consist of selected questions that were previously given as questions for the quiz.

Number of absences allowed: 2

Classes in period "Winter semester 2024/25" (future)

Time span: 2024-10-01 - 2025-01-26
Selected timetable range:
Navigate to timetable
Type of class:
Monographic lecture, 60 hours, 20 places more information
Coordinators: Anna Wójtowicz
Group instructors: Anna Wójtowicz
Students list: (inaccessible to you)
Examination: Course - Grading
Monographic lecture - Grading
Course descriptions are protected by copyright.
Copyright by University of Warsaw.
Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28
00-927 Warszawa tel: +48 22 55 20 000 https://uw.edu.pl/ contact accessibility statement USOSweb 7.0.3.0 (2024-03-22)