Why the Bangalore Shut Down Rule is Nonsense..

Note: This is long, but it is worth the read. Context: Bangalore has implemented a shut down rule of all clubs, bars, restaurants and other commercial establishments by 11:30 PM on the grounds of 'safeguarding our security'. Also known as the 'we can't do our job' rule.


You walk into the only coffee shop in the town. There could have been more, but that would have been wasteful, most of the townsfolk thought. One coffee shop for everybody's needs - efficient.

You say, "Can I get 1 Large Hot Coffee? Make it strong."

The barista says, "Suure, that'll be 50 million Zimbabwean dollars (why not?)."

You pay. You wait. After a while, the barista returns.

"Here you go! 1 Medium Cold Milk, as you needed."

"What! I didn't order milk! I paid you for hot black coffee!"

"I know. But you see, if we give you something hot, there's a good chance you're going to burn yourself. Why take the risk? We decided to make it cold. And coffee isn't the healthiest, is it? So we decided to give you milk instead. And portion control is the best way to prevent obesity - so medium instead of large! Hence, here you go - 1 medium cold milk."

Do you think you've been treated fairly here? If you don't think so, then I'm sure you agree the Bangalore Police don't really have a case for shutting down all commercial establishments after 11:30 PM. Let us look at their arguments and some key points closely:

1. "It is for your security. Our expert analysis tells us that more crimes happen at night than day! But if everyone is asleep at night - then no crimes, right?"

Well, good observation, Sherlock. You're right. Crimes do tend to happen more at nights. Generally, because there are /less people/ out on the streets at night. Impose a curfew, and in part, don't you leave citizens who are outside more vulnerable to attack?
Also, I feel like a few of my rights are being infringed upon here, as a citizen and potential business owner. And if it is for security, that's fine. But you have to prove how this makes things more secure.

Perhaps, they feel, everything depends on simply the absolute number of crimes. Lesser people outside at night and the absolute number of crimes might reduce. But the crimes/(no. of people outside) should surely be higher - thus making it more unsafe.

A city that doesn't sleep is far safer than a city forced to sleep at 11:30. Or so I think. I'll need to look into figures on this a li'l closer.


2. "We don't have enough police officers to monitor the city."

Well, should have thought about that before you took your cut from the taxes, eh? We pay taxes and the police have a monopoly over our security. It is their responsibility to prosecute those who commit crimes and prevent crimes from occurring as long as they don't interfere with our rights. They are welcome to issue a warning and if citizens still want to head out and party - cool. They'll police with as many police officers they want and do their best, resource willing. They won't be held culpable (they aren't) if a crime occurs, but they'll have to catch the culprit, set up strict punishments to act as deterrents and continue to let people make the choices they want to make to live their life.
(Ciggies aren't that good for us either. Ban them as well? Oh, can't. Marlboro's cash payment just came in...)


3. People who are going to commit crime aren't going to say, "OH! Dude, the cops said curfew. I guess we won't commit crime tonight. Let's pack up boys and hit the sack."

They will still be on the streets. And so will fewer innocents. Leaving innocents more vulnerable. More people around, more people awake, naturally, the safer the city. Citizen vigilantism is severely underestimated (look at Batman).


4. "It isn't moral to party or dance or drink alcohol or...um...dance."

Well, that isn't any of your concern, Mr. Police Officer. Your job is to keep us safe (refer to the above points), not to pass moral judgements on our lives. That job is reserved for the State Government. You see, we elect the State Government - they represent our views. If they pass a law saying it is immoral to dance and drink and live, fiiineeee - we asked for it, we elected them (and the electorate has spoken). But the man issuing these orders has not been elected into power. In some contorted way he is responsible to the CM who is responsible to us, buuuut, it is not his mandate to issue rules governing moral behaviour - that right is reserved to the State Government.


5. "All establishments must close. Oh. Except Empire. They can stay open. They serve food for people who need it in the nerve centre of the city."

Obviously not verbatim, but there was a notice passed around that said Empire Hotels can stay open later because, you see, Church Street is a busy place with lots of people who need to be fed. Of course, there are no other eating establishments on Church Street that can serve food. Of course, only Empire can cater to everybody's needs. Why Empire? Or rather, why only Empire? They did promptly revoke this, but it offers keen insight into the wallets...I mean, minds of our wonderful guardians.


6. This is horrible for business owners and the economy.

There exists a significant market for profit in a vibrant nightlife. In a metro like Bangalore especially. Business owners lose out, not just citizens. They're being robbed and don't know it. How can Bangalore be a city to live in when it's true economic potential can't be reached?

Who are you kidding, really? Security - hardly. Morality - you have no right. So then why does this rule stand? I don't want to believe it is fully constitutional (it'd break my heart; some democracy, some liberty).


The system is failing us. Sehwag for Prime Minister! 

Woof.

'Woof,' a friend of mine said to a puppy. Woof. She wanted to speak to it, communicate with it, understand it. Most would think that that's rather silly - haha, they'd say, a girl talking (barking) to a dog. And I admit, it paints a funny picture. But I think the idea behind it is rather noble.

Have you ever looked at a dog, and wondered what it thought, what it felt? Dogs always seem to have a face filled with deep wisdom, especially when their bellies are rubbed. But how often do we peer into their world, into anybody else's world? How often do we sit back and watch the world from the eyes of another, feel what they feel, hear what they hear and see what they see - four legged or two?

I don't think often enough.

But so what? Well, I think perspective is really important. I think the more perspective you have, the better. I don't think knowing only your perspective will ever be enough. I think you can sometimes learn things that will make you feel very good when you can see things from other peoples' perspective. But mostly, you'll understand where everyone comes from. So when you want to know how to make someone happy, or not make them sad, you'll know, because you can see things from their perspective. (I've used the word 'perspective' a lot, I know. I'm just driving home a point!)

You know the beautiful thing about a game like Counter Strike? When you're alive, it's a first person shooter. When you die, you can see things from the third person point of view, OR, through the eyes of another. The perspective (I should probably do a count on how often I use this word) that gives you when you're alive next time is fascinating, things are - but they are through eyes not only your own. (Deep, I know)

In poker, if you limit your perspective to yourself, you'll never win. Playing your cards is hardly important, playing your players is the key (God, how old is this rhetoric) - you need to get into the mind of your opponent, understand why people do what they do, and only then can you exploit that and profit. And everybody likes profit, baby.

I'll tell you how. Ani used to play straightforwardly (I use the phrase 'used to' lightly - he plays differently now, but I can't really say any better), when he was nervous (big hand or weak hand), he'd whip out his cellphone and text someone - so you'd know when he was polarised.
Nishant, on the other hand, sometimes picks up his big value chips if he thinks you're going to bet (and doesn't want you to), which tells me it is a good time to bet.
And Raashid, oh Raashid, gets this evil glint in his eyes when he wants to pull off some hero bluff.

You don't see these things if you're only playing your cards, your hands, your tendencies. You need to understand the tendencies of others, every now and then. You need to step outside the confines of your mind, your eyes and see the world not as you, but rather, as the world sees itself.

So the next time you see a girl barking at a dog, don't rush to laugh and point. Instead, take your time, understand how awesome she is for trying to understand, communicate; and theeeenn laugh and point.

Who is our best?

"Ronaldo is the best! He is the best! Luis Ronaldo, there was no defence that could contain him! Ronaldo!" Said a friend of mine, as he thrashed his arms around much like a 10 year old in a candy store. "Messi can't hold a candle to him, and don't even talk to be about the Portuguese Ronaldo. God. That other Ronaldo guy change his name. Luis Ronaldo is the best!"

This outburst, of course, was my fault, because I love to poke a response like this out of him (it really is amusing to watch). But this got me thinking, who is the best? Or rather, why is it that it is rarely black and white, in anything in life, that we can agree on who the best is.

And the more I thought about it, the more I got the feeling that what we define to be 'the best' is simply that which inspires us the most (or sometimes, that which we aspire to be). And we all find inspiration in different places - Some are inspired by the fact that Ronaldo (9) was a one man army, some by the genius of Messi at such a young age (I'll stick to football, for consistency). And the last thing any person wants is to lose their spark of inspiration.

I think we will protect that spark, no matter what. I have another friend who believed Ryan Giggs was a god. He is, on the football field, but he seemed to handle matters pretty badly in his personal life. And when my friend found out, she was gutted. And she should be, losing that spark is pretty horrible.

Ronaldo captured our imagination when we were kids - when Brazil played, the world watched. He was confident on the ball, he genius was remarkable. And he made quite the impression on my friend at his impressionable age. I know understand the fervour with which he defends his hero, his 'best.'

And the wonderful thing about poker? You could be the best and never know it. It is a game where the obvious effects of variance are so easy to see- you could be the greatest player ever, run bad, and quit (or be lost in the Micros). But we still have players we consider to be the best. And what do we base this on? Them actually being the best? More likely, I think, on the type of player we aspire to be. I started out thinking Doyle was the nutz, then Ferguson, then Dwan, then Ivey and now, Hellmuth? (Naaah)

So the next time you're fighting over who the best is, ask yourself how they inspire you (and, if you're in the mood, how your friend's best inspires him), and you might take away more from the slugfest that is going to ensue.

And atleast there's one thing we know for sure..
Sachin is the best :)

U and You

Andres Carvajal. That's a name I cannot pronounce, but one I will not forget. He was my Mathematical Economics 1A lecturer last year, a module that focused on Decision Theory and Game Theory. Fascinating, right? I thought so too. The exam, however, wasn't as fascinating. But that's another story.

Why do I bring him up? Because one day in class he taught us the Mathematical concept of 'Independence' (I won't bore you with it), and then went on to criticise it and show how it wasn't a great assumption. Then, after teaching us Nash Equilibrium, he proceeded to tear it apart and tell us that he didn't much care for it. And all I thought was - Woah! You can criticise mathematical concepts? Woah. You can criticise anything.

And those lectures got me thinking about Utility - essentially, economics lingo for happiness; and Utility Functions - essentially, all the factors that influence your happiness; and us economists like to believe that rational people (hah!) do their best to maximise their utility subject to constraints they face (that's really everybody's motivation).

Fairly straightforward, right? You do what you can to make yourself happy. But do we really know what makes us happy? Economists will sit and assume certain things that they think will make you happy, but really, that's just approximations. In truth, I don't believe we ourselves know what makes us happy all the time (we know certain conscious things that make us happy, but then there are sub conscious things which we act on, but by definition, don't consciously know). Makes sense? We want to be happy. We act to make ourselves happy. But we aren't always conscious of the things that make us happy.

I believe the one thing Economists got right, though, is that life and its decisions is about maximising our happiness.

So really, our utility functions are very vague, abstract entities. Rarely are they quantifiable and are highly dynamic in nature, changing constantly. So here's my poker example of this thought:

If you assume that everybody who sits down to play poker is only looking to maximise the amount of money they are going to win, then you're wrong. Truth is, different people sit down for different reasons with different motivations. Let us take 2 people, A who plays poker /only/ for money, and B who just plays poker for a variety of reasons. Let us say they are both contemplating raising, their thought processes (conscious and sub conscious) would look like this:

A: raises for value/protection, to bluff and steal, for image

B: raises for value, to bluff, to impress the really cute dealer chick that just sat down, to get back at that guy who bluffed him, to be baller and say, 'all in.'

Now if we analyse the way these two play poker (when they raise), we might find many spots where B makes -EV plays (burns money) as compared to some of the plays A makes. But has B made a mistake? No. He's simply maximised what is important to him. He hasn't really played it wrong, he just cares for different things. He might not even consciously know that he's flexing his biceps when the dealer chick sits down, but flexing maximises his (emotional?) EV (actually, Expected Utility).

And what does that mean? That economists over simplify; that utility functions are nearly impossible to define; and that whenever you do something, you do it because you think it'll make you happiest (short or long run, depending on whats important to you).

So really, in a convoluted sort of way, I'm saying that we shouldn't second guess ourselves and the decisions we make. Try and understand why you made them (jump into your sub conscious, a la Freud), learn about you and don't regret anything - you maximised your utility (subject to what you knew then about the world and you).

So when you're broke, and lying in bed, and wondering why you shoved all in pre with 7-2 off, know that you did it because doing it made you happiest then. And maybe, just maybe, that cute dealer chick thought you were quite baller for it.

Stable State - Alone?

This rather geeky Economics professor of mine was spouting random thoughts one class. Talking to us about economic thought, he was analysing relationships, people and social interactions. So, in typical Economics fashion, he built a model: He assumed our stable state in life is being alone - we enter and exit relationships but essentially, we're always alone. He then began examining the nature of relationships, how long they last and the amplitude and frequency of oscillations (I warned you, geeky. Also, quite possibly one of his friends just suffered a break up of sorts.)

His economic thought didn't make me think as much as his assumption. Which, after I gave a bit of my own economic thought to, I decided to disagree with. Our stable state is certainly not us being alone. In fact, through most of a human life, we rarely are alone. We're born onto this planet connected to our mothers, we're taken care of by family (and society), and most of us learn to take care of ourselves, to take care of our own someday. The stability of our state, in many ways, is determined by the number and strength of the bonds we keep to those closest to us.

I only harp on this because off late, I've been wondering whether or not the most crucial aspect of life is being independent. And learning to being comfortable in solitude. And in some ways, it is. But only in a trivial sense, it shouldn't really be practiced a lot. It's important to be independent so that if a strong relationship fades away, you are strong enough to reinvest in another (knowing who you are). I don't think one can ever be truly satisfied or happy being alone.

Poker analogy (I apologise): It's like being properly rolled for the game you're playing in. If you lose your stack, you shouldn't bat an eyelid when you rebuy. And your bankroll shouldn't really inhibit you from stacking off in stacking off spots (game - relationship. bankroll - independence or knowing yourself. You get the point).

And the fear of being alone is pretty high up in the list of things people fear the most. It's right next to spiders, snakes and the unknown. And with fear, comes insecurity. And with insecurity, I've found, comes drama. And barring Gaga, nobody likes drama. (Did I just make a Gaga reference? A part of me just died)

And those who are genuinely comfortable being alone are such a small proportion of human kind that they're like Argon- they don't really count.

I think life would be easier if everyone just accepted this. Figured out who they are. Figured out who they want their relationships to be with. Don't really care if they don't fit in with everyone. Because they do fit.

And when things don't work out, blame it on variance, keep calm and rebuy.

Should we ban casinos?

He's a taxi driver. In many ways, he simple isn't happy with the life he leads. Last year, there was a report on a tabloid on how a 60 year old lady made millions on a jackpot she won. Imagine her life now, the article wrote. That was last year, and he hasn't made his million since.

We go to the casino to fill us with a sense of excitement that we lack in life. And sometimes, dangerously, to find a miracle cure to some of our monetary problems. There's nothing wrong with having fun, and I definitely believe we should have the autonomy to make our own decisions. But should we be protecting the most vulnerable? The ones most likely to lose and lose big at a casino?

First, the facts. No floor game in a casino is beatable. In the long run, everyone except the house is a loser. In the short run, you can ride the variance train up, or usually, down. The casino makes its own rules - if it finds you can beat a game, like Blackjack with counting cards, you're disallowed from playing ever again. So the premise is this - everytime you step into the casino, you have to play in -EV spots; you will always lose money.

So then, why do people play? For some, it's about the entertainment, the thrill. It'd be hard to call these people irrational because on some level, they don't excessively risk themselves and they do find value for their buck. But for those who come to make some money, I think we have to term them irrational for whatever reason.

There are 18 red spots, 18 black spots and 1 non colour spot. I tell you, we'll spin the wheel, if it comes on the colour you choose (red or black), I'll match your bet. Else, you lose. Over the course of many spins, you will always lose because of the 1 non colour spot. Yet people play this and play it for extended times. They take sub optimal gambles consistently over large sample spaces genuinely believing they have an edge. When they lose, they chase their loses. And their wins only reaffirm their misguided faith that the game is beatable.

For the truly irrational gambler, a casino will ruin his life.

So the question is, as I see it, to protect the most vulnerable in our society, does it make sense to curb the rights of the rest?

Well, let's look at the argument for keeping them around - casinos exist because people like to gamble. If you remove a casino, it doesn't remove their innate need to gamble and they will continue to, in backalleys and with crime syndicates - how will be protect our most vulnerable then?

Also, as mentioned earlier, we can't be told what we can or cannot do (or can't we? We ban drugs and underage drinking and a whole load of other things to protect us from ourselves).

I guess, I'm at odds. My mind says we need to keep them around. My heart, however, sees the taxi driver's mortgage on the next spin.

Well, gentlemen, place your bets.