  Human beings like to believe they are in control of their destiny. This
ubiquitous trait seems to increase motivation and persistence, and is probably
evolutionarily adaptive. But how good really is our ability to control? How
successful is our track record in these areas? There is little understanding of
when and under what circumstances we may over-estimate or even lose our ability
to control and optimize outcomes, especially when they are the result of
aggregations of individual optimization processes. Here, we demonstrate
analytically using the theory of Markov Chains and by numerical simulations in
two classes of games, the Minority game and the Parrondo Games, that agents who
optimize their strategy based on past information actually perform worse than
non-optimizing agents. In other words, low-entropy (more informative)
strategies under-perform high-entropy (or random) strategies. This provides a
precise definition of the "illusion of control" in set-ups a priori defined to
emphasize the importance of optimization.
