Drazen, I understand you are just giving an easy example but you are already determining that you are going to win every B game in 100 rounds. None of us can guarantee that we are going to win every first hand out of two playing roulette. I think people are putting the cart before the horse with this paradox. Find a way to win at roulette first and then see if you can improve it with stuff like this rather than the other way around or I don't see how you can make it work.
Wiggy I see what troubles you. And that is very logical by itself. There must be a positive expectation game for Parrondo to apply and then by alternating between 2 losing games and a winning game, overall we are winning. But of course as we know unfortunately there is no positive expectation game in roulette. If we had one we wouldn't need Parrondo at all, right? It would be perfectly enough just to play our positive expectation game, and we would be winning.
I must say that I think I don't have the answer which would satisfy the masses, so maybe Priyanka can explain this.
Or maybe there is a way of getting positive expectation somehow, just that we are not aware of
