Paranormal Psychology

This post is part of the Pac-Man Risk Management series.
1. Introduction :: 2. You are Not Pac-Man :: 3. Paranormal Psychology

Those pesky ghosts just won't go away. Much like our risks on projects, huh? Yes, the ghosts in the Pac-Man game represent risks in this analogy, forever stalking us through the maze. Inky, Blinky, Pinky, and Clyde...the dastardly limbs of the overall risk quadruped which hunts Pac-Man until he clears the maze or they get him!

It is a quite scary scenario when you think about it. Here is poor Pac-Man, dropped into a maze, starving. He's blind and without limbs! He's a circle, for Christ's sake!! And these ghosts are after him from the get-go and they never explain why! They just chase him as soon as the music starts while Pac-Man, poor Pac-Man, hustles to eat while he still lives. The plot is not only horrifying, it has a subtle, yet important, underlying theme of the challenges of famine that face the world.

This made me wonder about the motive of the ghosts - what is their particular psychological incentive to get Pac-Man? The man's gotta eat, right? Why mess with him in the first place. After doing (very little) research, I've been able to prove conclusively that as with most psychos, it is impossible to understand their motivations - rather, they just exist and there is nothing we can do about their existence in the scope of the game. Much like slasher movies that were born to popularity at the same time, in the late 70's and early 80's, we must remain content with "it is what it is" and deal with it.

(Major Digression: This got me totally on a tangent, as my mind jumped to 80's horror flicks. I went back to Wikipedia and looked up Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger, and Michael Myers just for kicks and wondered how these series could still be alive after so many years now. I realized two things and one question. Realization #1: I'm really starting to love Wikipedia. Realization #2: These three bad guys will go down in history in a entirely new category of all-time-greatest-villain because I caught myself grinning as I read through their profiles, reminded about how much fun these psychos brought me. And, Question: As they continue to squeeze films out of these franchises, they intersected with Freddy v. Jason, a movie I was unfortunate enough to catch very late at night about a year ago or so. Pac-Man has similar derivatives (Ms. Pac-Man, Super Pac-Man, tons of variations for game systems, etc.). Isn't it time for a version of Pac-Man that sets the ghosts against each other? Think about it. The game starts and Pac-Man starts eating dots as the ghosts set out to rip each other apart. Your goal is to eat the dots without getting caught in the cross-fire. I think it is would be a blast. I reserve all rights, license, copyright, etc., to this idea. )

So regardless of the project, much like Pac-Man, risks exist independent of our decisions. We can rest assured that no matter the project, some level of risk management is beneficial. Further, the nature of the risks external and internal changes based on our planning and execution. You see this in slasher flicks, too. Factors outside of our control. Think we know, things we know that we don't know, and things that we don't know that we don't know. In the books, these risk categories represent the Known, the Known-Unknown, and the Unknown-Unknown and these do represent the broad sets of things with which we deal.

Let's look at scenario's for each.


The Cornered Animal

As much a function of the maze as anything, you find yourself trapped as those crafty ghosts come around opposite corners and put you in a pinch. If you are luck, you've done this in one of the four corners of the maze and you haven't yet eaten that big dot (which I have since learned is called an "energizer" from my extensive research on the subject). If you've got a dot, then you'll make it out alive. If you don't, then slather on some butter 'cause you are toast.

You know this risk very well (if you've played Pac-Man before). This is a Known risk. Something that can happen in a number of places throughout the maze. That's one of the basic tenants of the game - don't get trapped by the ghosts. When we talk about known risks, this example is a great one because, no matter how much we play, it can still happen. No matter how much we plan, no matter how much of the board you cover visually, it is an ever-present danger. And we know this going in and we're aware of throughout the life of the effort.


The Lone Dot

You make decisions throughout execution. Left or Right? Up or Down? Go after these dots in the lower left-hand corner or do I go after that appetizing long-run of dots up the left side? At times you find your plans thwarted by the ghosts and you have to abandon your consumption for awhile. Sometimes you leave only a few dots. Sometimes you just leave one. And that one dot, the Lone Dot, is the most irritating one on the board.

The reason it is irritating is that you don't have a choice about whether to go back and get it. You cannot complete the project without eating that last dot. And the risks are so high for it. It requires great tactics and planning. It requires supreme patience. Because you don't know what those ghosts are going to do. You know they exist, but you don't know how quickly they will get to you when you go for it. The ghosts are known, but how they will react to you going after the dot sitting all alone is completely unknown. This represents that even given the facts of our risks, the precise nature of these risks in this scenario remain unknown. Which makes it both frightening and exciting.


The Will Smith

My kids love that Will Smith song, Switch. Pretty good tune, not one I would buy, but it's groovy enough - my wife has it on her iPod and the kids go nuts. Lots of fun for the kids and I'm okay the first time they play it. By the third go in a row, I could not care less if they ever make MIB III.

When the ghosts switch direction in the game, though, you care a great deal. It is a behavior that is completely unpredictable. When the ghosts switch direction for no apparent reason, it will freak you out. You don't know what they are up to. In this way, the ghosts are a lot like the weather - you don't know it's raining until you are wet. I would argue that it is much like Will Smith in another aspect as well - you don't know whether the movie or song is going to be good until you are in the middle of it. Sorry Will, but it is true. You had a nice run in the late 90's but after that you branched out and I'm not sure I'm jiggy with it.

Regardless, we know they (like Will Smith) are going to do something but what they are going to do we do not know. What are the variables that affect their direction, speed, decisions, etc.? We simply don't know - and can't know. Our mitigation is simple enough: avoid them. But that is not always possible. Much like a Will Smith song or movie.

Good Reading: Busting Vegas

Busting Vegas: The MIT Whiz Kid Who Brought the Casinos To Their Knees
by Ben Mezrich
HarperCollins Publishers
2005
ISBN: 9780060575113

Rating:


Can you guess the origins of modern risk management? That's right: Gaming. In its earliest form, dice games started the notion of probabilities and uncertainties that would carry forward into modern ideas of risk. As I'm always on the look out for examples of risk management and it was a pleasure to find some great ones in Busting Vegas to help demonstrate. Not only is the story very entertaining, but Ben Merzich gives us a great breakdown of the techniques used by a small group of MIT students that figured out how to beat the house - through risk management.

A little background before we get into it too much. Basically, the central character - this is a true story by the way - is named Semyon Dukach, a 21-year old MIT student and mathematical genius. Generally bored with his course work and his job in the computer lab, he gets hooked up with some fellow students who have figured out creative ways to beat casinos. And in these glorious methods for making millions, we can see some real risk management at work.


The House Always Wins

I've long had an affinity for Roulette (which is why I don't go to casinos). I was convinced at one point that I had a method for beating the game, which I soon found out was not true. I should have known better. The best I could ever hope to do would be to grind it out like Kinish in the movie Rounders. But the numbers don't lie and even that approach would end up with me losing over the long-term. With my luck I would end up in a game with Teddy KGB and my 3 stacks of high society promptly lost.

I've often said to team members that I'm teaching or coaching that faith, hope, and luck only exists in casinos and Churches - not on projects. In Rounders, Mike (played by Matt Damon) is able to remove elements of this uncertainty by having an uncanny knack for reading his opponents. He's picked up on aspects of the effort other than the task at hand (winning the card game) to discover something that will help him win. He's in effect really thinking out of the box and essentially minimizing his risk.

Our friends from MIT, lead by Semyon, have done something very similar, but on a greater scale. The MIT kids examined the entire situation when it comes to gaming and looked for opportunities to mitigate their risks.

Most people are familiar with the idea of card counting (these MIT guys actually do very little card counting). Card counting is legal, but the casino can still opt to put you out when they catch you doing it. This power the casino holds over its environment is what the casino uses to mitigate its risk (and maximize yours). Semyon and his friends keyed on this and looked at many environmental factors and how to press their advantage against the casinos. To win they had to play cards - they're focus was blackjack - but they understood the role of the environment and looked to leverage it for success. Not just a one-off success, but sustained success.


But Not With These Guys

The three techniques - what they do with the cards - are (1) a guided Ace to player, (2) Key-Sequence of played cards, and (3) a guided 10 to dealer. Through understanding the probabilities and odds, along with perfecting some environmental controls, this team was able to shift the percentages dramatically in their favor. All games of chance in a casino run between 2% and 5% to the casino; that is, for every dollar you play the casino wins between 2 and 5 cents over the long run. The house always wins. With these techniques, the MIT kids could swing the return to 51% to the player with the first two techniques for a single session (all the hands you played in a sitting), and with the third technique drive a 30% return per hand. Wow.

The specifics of how the techniques work are less important (for us anyway) than the ideas of mitigation and control that they performed. One way they controlled the environment was that they perfected the ability to "cut the deck" (in casinos for blackjack it is six decks) and know precisely how many cards are in front or behind. Powerful information.

Another way was to understand and take advantage of the dealers. The physical size of the hands of the dealer played mattered to these guys so that they could catch a glimpse of cards (the leveraged small and large hands). The dealer's skill matter too. In fact, they often wanted the most experienced and precise dealers - because they were predictable. These dealers would shuffle precisely, a one-over-one split, and consistent movement routines, enabling them to track and follow a single card through the shuffle. Amazing stuff.

They also took advantage of the environment in an innovative way. By hiding in plain sight. These guys would disguise themselves, not with dark glasses and cap pulled down over their eyes, but by becoming superstars, high-rollers who came in like the owned the place. The would bet big as soon as they sat down. The were hyper aware that the casino was always watching, but they turned that on its head by basically putting their faces right into the camera. The would beat the casino then expect to be comped. It must have been a ride and it certainly sounds like it the way Merzich tells it.


The Moral of the Story

Not Merzich's book, but this post. Never mind the morality of relative sinfulness of gaming. We're talking about risk management. And ultimately, these MIT whiz kids got it - they could count cards all day long but that is reactive behavior. Innovation of techniques could be discovered by considering the risks that exist in the total project environment. And, through considering these things, they could become proactive and drive the casinos to their knees.

The book is a blast and I'd recommend it. Don't purchase it for intellectual stimulation. Purchase it for a fun read that is thought provoking. But, as always, think of the risks involved and what the MIT kids did about them.

You are Not Pac-Man

This post is part of the Pac-Man Risk Management series.
1. Introduction :: 2. You are Not Pac-Man :: 3. Paranormal Psychology

No, you are not Pac-Man in this analogy. You are most likely a project or program manager (or aspiring to be one) in the real world, and here you are no different (with the exception that it doesn't really matter how often you win or lose). Pac-Man represents a team member. Albeit in this case, a team member that is a mindless drone who goes and does precisely as you direct. This could be good or bad depending on how troublesome team members are for you. But, if the ghost gets him, then it is clearly your fault. Takes 10 minutes to clear a board? Your fault. Goes for the fruit, gets killed along the way? Yep - your fault.

All of the decisions are made by you, the project manager. And Pac-Man does as he is told, no questions asked. He goes about the business of eating the dots according to your plan. In the real world, obviously, we don't have precisely this situation. People factors come into play. But for us to see concepts, this helps because we can isolate the impact of people factors. More on people factors in a bit, but generally this mimics pretty close to the way it works on a project.

The purpose of the game is to clear each maze of dots while capturing bonus opportunities when they present themselves (or when you strategically create bonus opportunities). All the while avoiding those pesky ghosts, Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde. This parallels our project environment nicely, doesn't it? In case you missed it, the ghosts are the risks. Now, we'll dig into the maze and the ghosts in a later post, so let's first appreciate the purpose in the first place and our hero, Pac-Man.

Our function as controllers of Pac-Man is guide him through the maze, consuming the dots as efficiently as possible, until the maze is clear. Ever stop to think about why you hurry through the maze? There's no time limit, other than one you impose. Perhaps it is because you raced your friends when you were a kid or something like that? Actually, it is a natural stress response - I'm sure there is some psychology of it somewhere, but I'm not going to look it up. Think about it: the longer you spend in the maze, the more likely you are to be trapped by the ghosts. If you've run out of the "super" dots, those 4 magical, super-sized dots (the forerunner of "super-sized" concepts at fast-food joints, I guess), then you can only run from the little fellas.

And they will eventually trap you no matter how good you are. I remember when I was a kid going to the arcade some of the "big kids" there seemed to know a pattern to beat the game. In other words, there was a certain path, a combinations of moves, through the maze that would allow Pac-Man to consume the dots without encountering a ghost. I'm not sure if it was the most efficient path, the fastest path, or what, but it seemed to work. Trouble was, that if one of those kids zigged when he should have zagged, he would be toast just like anybody else. He was experienced and it made a difference. He cleared more boards and scored more points than anybody else so even though you always eventually lose the game (you have to stop sometime), he won in the eyes of others and according to the leading scores listing.

Was he necessarily the best project manager of Pac-Man? Not necessarily. But there is something in the way he played that taught us all an important lesson. Though we didn't think of it this way at the time - who would? - he had found a way to completely minimize his risk within the game. His only risk was external to the game itself - his error in guiding Pac-Man, his need to go to the bathroom and no way to pause the game, his mother arriving to pick him up and take him home. He had discovered the "happy path" for completing his project and that separated him from the pack.

Now, not everyone could do this. For most players, each time you dropped in a quarter, it was a new game. The goals and objectives were the same, but it was a new chance, a slate clean, same number of lives to lose, and with zero points. Also, the same risks presented themselves. They will manifest themselves differently depending on what you do, but they are generally there. And this tells us some basic concepts of risk management.

1. It is a project, with a definite beginning and ending. The music will start and the "wanka-wanka-wanka" will start when you start gobbling dots. The ghosts will come out of the center and begin the chase, and will chase you until you clear the board. The project will start and it won't end until you win or you are dead.

2. The risks exist and we can know what they are. But, we don't necessarily know how they will behave. We know what they are trying to do, but we can only anticipate their moves based on their general proximity. And, the proximity matters. How close they are to you makes you more nervous.

3. We know we have some risk mitigation devices and they are finite. You've only really got 4 super dots that turn the tables on the ghosts. We have to chose to use the strategically (pausing beside the dot and waiting for one or many of the ghosts to come near) or tactically (being chased and just getting the dot at the last minute). The difference is proactive behavior versus reactive behavior.

4. While we have very little control over the risks themselves, we have total control over how we will handle it. We decide. We send the team member a certain direction. As we stress we make shakier decisions and we start to have additional issues. Rarely, when you get in a jam do you get out of it without some impact to your nerves, confidence, and focus.

5. We are responsible for the team member. Pac-Man does what he is told and that is the limit of it. In our practice of risk management, we know we have human element that we can count on (or worry about, depending on the person), but ultimately, regardless of the human factors, we are responsible. And we should act accordingly.

To close this post, I'll qualify all of it with the fact that while these look "absolute" there are very few absolutes in risk management - and most of those are debatable. We'll see more of those as we go, but for now give some thought to our hero Pac-Man and what we put him through. I wish I could find a statistic that estimated the number of times Pac-Man has died - I'm betting in the trillions, but he always seems to come back. And, the ghosts too.

Betting Your Life

I've never been much of a The Wall Street Journal reader, though over the years I've had a subscription a couple of times. Then better sense gets me and I let it go. I never have felt I got my money's worth out of it. I'm just not that into it. Still, there is always a good article or two in there (the editorials are consistently horrific, by the way), and the free copy I snagged this morning at the Marriott had a good one.

Front page, below the fold, "An Insurance Man Builds A Lively Business in Death." The article really shares two key things with us. 1) The concept of "life settlements" as a booming industry, and 2) this guy Alan Buerger who has pioneered the concept (and is probably making a killing, pardon the pun).

(Funny Aside: Alan Buerger had the nickname "Ham" at some point in his life - I cannot imagine why they mentioned this in a WSJ article. Good grief. Not only was he probably ridiculed as a child, at the height of his success for being an "innovator" of the insurance industry, the WSJ has to drudge up "Ham." The poor, poor man.)

To summarize the concept of life settlements, it is simply an insurance business where you can sell your life insurance policy to an insurance broker or other interested 3rd party. This insurance broker takes a look at you, your policy terms, and estimates a present value of your life insurance policy. They pay you for it, take on your premiums, then cash it in when you die. In the insurance industry, this is quite an innovation, though I'm not convinced it has anything to do with "insurance" in any sense. Rather, it looks to me more like an exercise in speculation (which is actually referenced in the article too).

Anyway, for grins, I hit the web and got to Buerger's company, Conventry First LLC, to check it out. It is a relatively low-rent site, but has a nifty little function. It has a quick questionnaire that you can fill out to see if your policy is "likely or unlikely" to have a present value. They call it a Quick Qualifier and I gave it a whirl - not surprisingly, I'm "unlikely" to qualify.

(Interesting Aside: This morning when I actually Goggled "life settlements" to find his company, his website was at the top of the results as a sponsored link. When I Googled it again tonight to snag the links for the website, it wasn't there. I cleared and Googled a couple of times and it didn't come back - the article wasn't necessarily flattering in WSJ so I wonder if he pulled back a bit. Curious, curious. I found it on the third page of links.)

This quick qualifier tool really demonstrates some of the risk mitigation they've got in play. The first question starts with an age question. The "lowest" question asks if you are 62 or younger. This indicates that they are really targeting people that don't have many payments left until they get into the money. The type of policy matters too. Whole, term, etc. This quick questionnaire quickly filters out the basics - the risks are too high to Coventry of them making their money (or at least locking in their desired margin) for some people. With a quick questionnaire, 10 questions, they are discouraging me from contacting them. I'm too risky to them because I'm more likely to live longer than their financial models predict, and thus not achieving their desired return on the investment.

When you set aside the moral questions (and I think there are a few) you can see a company taking advantage of a risk-based industry (insurance), identifying an opportunity, assessing risk based on data, and pursuing the value with eyes wide open. What I like about this program is that it doesn't pretend to be anything other that what it is - a big bet on your life. At least it is honest, though perhaps a little unsettling.

For us, we can see what just a few risk-based questions can do. It isolates customers to just the critical few that they want. It keeps costs down, where Coventry would have to deal with many people (like me) looking to cash in but would not be a profitable (or at least as profitable as they would like). It allows them to focus on the policies that would be the most profitable, where they can really examine the return associated with the risk they assume - you living longer than you should according to their data. Fascinating! I love it!

Give it a spin and see if you are "likely or unlikely" to have a qualified case - maybe you can benefit from some speculation on your life by some unnamed investor. Regardless, it is a good example of risk assessment and mitigation worth giving some thought.

Every thing I need to know about risk management I learned from Pac-Man

This post is part of the Pac-Man Risk Management series.
1. Introduction :: 2. You are Not Pac-Man :: 3. Paranormal Psychology

Okay, not really "every thing" about risk management. But, you can get the basics which is vital to be going on with.

In putting together this blog, I stumbled on to a Pac-Man "widget" at Widgetbox and was reminded of the "Pac-Man Analogy" that I've used at various times in the risk management class. I don't always use this (it depends on the flow of the class), but it is fun and it does have a simple important conceptual lesson in it. As an analogy, it works quite well. Plus, it is kind of fun to have a little game on this blog and it actually be relevant!

Pac-Man is a quintessential risk management exercise. Simplistic in nature, most of us have spent (and can still spend) countless hours eating those little dots. Our challenge is to eat all the dots for a particular game board without running into the ghosts. Clear the board, and move to the next level. Simple, right? Four ghosts chase us around the maze while our hero, Pac-Man, gobbles small dots. If in jeopardy, Pac-Man can make his way to one of the large dots or make for a pass-through and then turn the tables on those pesky ghosts - he can eat them for a short period of time and earn additional points with the large dots. Very tempting!

Then there are the fruit that come hopping along as we try to work through the maze. Oh, how these fruit are bait for us! Oh the decision we must make!! Do I go after the dots, or do I detour and chase the fruit?!? The longer I run around this maze, the more likely I am to get in a pinch with those ghosts. Oh, the strategy involved!! What a wonderful game!

I put the Pac-Man game on the lower right-hand side of the blog. Give it a spin and give some thought to the risk / reward decisions you make as you play. I'll follow-up with additional posts that touch on the analogy further so keep an eye out for updates.

Enjoy!