Quote:
Originally Posted by RollWave
lol, you are just now acknowledging that there is a difference between cooperative and non-cooperative games?
yes, this difference is extremely relevant, as people have been saying for 300+ posts.
In the sort of game theory that is studied and applied by economists the concept of “utility" is very fundamental and essential. Von Neumann and Morgenstern give a notably good and thorough treatment of utility in their book (on game theory and economic behavior). The concept of utility (mathematical) does indeed predate the book of Von Neumann and Morgenstern. And for example, as a concept, mathematical utility can be traced back to a paper published in 1886 in Pisa by G. B. Antonelli.
When one studies what are called ”cooperative games", which in economic terms include mergers and acquisitions or cartel formation, it is found to be appropriate and is standard to form two basic classifications:
(1): Games with transferable utility.
(and)
(2): Games without transferable utility
(or “NTU" games).
In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the “lubrication" which enables the efficient “transfer of utility". And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome.
But this function of chips in generally facilitating the transfer of utility would seem to be as well performed by the currency of PSFTCIAFBIDOJ as by that of a player run site. Or the question can be asked “How do `raked poker' and `rakeless poker’ differ, if at all, for the valuable function of facilitating utility transfer?". But if we consider contracts having a relatively long time axis then the difference can be seen clearly.
Consider a poker society where the chips in use are subject to a rapid and unpredictable rate of rake so that chips worth 100 now might be worth from 50 to 10 by a year from now. Who would want to lend chips for the term of a year?
In this context we can see how the “quality" of a rake standard can strongly influence areas of the poker economy involving financing with longer-term credits.
And also, if we view rake as of importance in connection with transfers of utility, we can see that rake itself is a sort of “utility", using the word in another sense, comparable to supplies of water, electric energy or telecommunications. And then, if we think about it, we can consider the quality of rake as comparable to the quality of some “public utility" like the supply of electric energy or of water.