In response to last week’s newsletter about games of chance, one reader shared his conservative ethos surrounding lotto numbers as a former player: He used the same numbers every time, “because if I changed them then the usual numbers would be the winners.” (No doubt, many of us cling to a single starting word in Wordle for the same reason.) Looking back, the reader added, “I have since learned that lotto is a tax on those who don’t understand probability.” That last line hits home for me, and not just because I’ve never won the lottery. It’s because I really don’t understand probability, nor do I care to. In fact, the very idea of betting on odds gives me stress hives. Maybe it’s because I’ve never been lucky, or because I still don’t understand the math of the Monty Hall problem, in which a contestant’s chances of winning a car versus a goat are somehow 1 in 3 even when there are only two doors to choose from. All I know is that I would rather watch paint dry than watch a show like “Deal or No Deal,” because at least with paint, the outcome is guaranteed. Some might view this as risk-averse behavior. To them, I say: What’s riskier than getting a B.F.A.? I’m only half kidding. Consider how many aspects of life consist of little bets on circumstances outside our control: opting for a higher spice level on the restaurant menu; leaving the house without an umbrella; getting to the airport less than an hour before a flight (never ask me to travel with you). Each of us dabbles in different likelihoods. Some of us take financial risks, like playing the lotto; others prefer creative ones, like going to art school. Neither is better than the other. Still, I will be getting to the airport three hours early. And you will catch me playing a Monty Hall-like game show only if I get to keep the goat. From the Archive
Puzzle of the WeekThis week, check out the Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, by Adam Shapiro. In his constructor notes, Mr. Shapiro wrote: “This puzzle started when I fell in love with the smiley grid shape. I was working on a themed collaboration that used a version of this grid with more black squares, and thought it could be adapted into something fun and unusual for a themeless, too.” Read more in the Wordplay column. Celebrate ConnectionsIf you’re in the New York City area, join our editors next Tuesday, Oct. 27, for a New York Times Games night at the 92Y, celebrating the launch of the new Connections book! You’ll see Wyna Liu, Joel Fagliano, Sam Ezersky and Tracy Bennett in conversation about their games. Attendees will also have the chance to participate in live gameplay. You’ll find tickets here.
How are we doing? We’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to crosswordeditors@nytimes.com. Thanks for playing! Subscribe to New York Times Games or follow us on Instagram. If you like this newsletter, you can tell your friends to sign up here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Publicar un comentario