While we wait for the Parrondo Proponents to rear their delusional heads, you might find this link (spotted elsewhere) interesting:

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/...er/games/ma.htm

Presumably it is trying to describe the underlying principles of the paradox.

I've been working through it and it has more than its fair share of holes. Unfortunate since formulae with typos defeat the purpose.

But you don't need to do too much work to note the obvious flaw in the hoax.

Game B is supposed to be negative. And it plays out according to its own current capital.

But the moment you combine it with Game A you alter Game B and its probabilities. Because you introduce random external variations to its capital thus altering the way it plays out.

Yet the author has no qualms about squandering taxpayers' money writing papers with deceptive titles like:

"Losing strategies can win by Parrondo's paradox"