The new goal of poker is to solve the game, rather than picking up individual ev. This changes the context maybe.

Congratulations for keeping your answer to three sentences. However, you have revealed once again that you really don't understand what the words mean.

I think you say that since just because players are 'cooperating' on their strategy doesn't mean its a 'cooperative game' all of a sudden.

But I wonder if that is not true, and maybe we aren't able to fully see through the context of the current game and properly project the ramifications of its change.

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.

First, cite.
Second, wtf with the uneven and inaccurate transposition into poker terms.
Third, so what?

You've been the best mod to me of the whole Internet which is interesting I think because you have the most controversial section of all (thx.).


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...poker-1353102/

The writer has developed a "dynamical approach to the study of cooperative games based upon reduction to non-cooperate form.

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

I've come to understand myself a lot in the last short while. I realize now the difficultly in communication I have with this subject and content, and I am starting to understand why. [QUOTE]

I point out this as a fundamental. Its not meant to describe the vision in the context of our daily life. We would want that extrapolated in real time. The simply direct answer to your question would be we share our strategy secrets without reservation. The ramifications are great of course, because with such a change in utility, or game type (from non transferable to transferable OR competitive to cooperative), or however we wish to represent or describe such a change, there will be a drastic change in strategy for example sitting on a table may no longer be the best way to maximize ones ev.


Now I understand this question, because you want to know the irl implications, and in the context of your question I have not given them, nor do I wish to define them. You ask me what my idea is, and so my answer is always that is 'a fundamental' in my eyes. But you are really asking what does my idea lead to, and since I never intended at this point to lead it to anything, my answer to you was (by my not conscious mistake) empty.

This would be an example of an answer to your question:

I'm simply saying if you want to progress basket ball to the max, then get all the players and coaching together and discuss how to improve known strategies of the game.

You might argue the nba is the ideal system to develop the game. But that is not the intention of the nba, not its mission, not the utility for it.

If you want to do this the best way would be to start with the intention of improving our knowledge on the game, and not with either the assumption that capitalism in the for of NBA is a given, nor with the assumption that there MUST be individualistic competition.

Note: that in this sense, and of what I describe, you can still have individualistic competition and utilities (I know I used this word bad here), while still remaining cooperative. Without such a note of course this would be the first counter point someone presents (that you need some form of individual competition).

The quote we laugh at me about starts out something like "Adam smith was wrong", and alludes to the correction that he should have said "Individual AND the group"

Adam Smith never said anything that I can relate to being WRONG in terms of denouncing any connection or benevolence towards neither the individual NOR the group.

THIS is what is important. People are too busy ridiculing me to realize the obvious.

You do not personally gain, by screwing over the world you live in.

If utopia is possible (as an ideal and an example), you do not personally gain by flawing it. This is clear, simple, and obvious.

I added posts today starting from #357. I just had a small revaluation (revelation but not spiritual or large) that lead me to understand the issue of communication.

First, some people are stuck laughing at me for the comparison of the nash equilibrium to the explanation of it in "a beautiful mind". These people are the type of people who like to know something others don't and laugh at them in order to make themselves feel smarter. I am addressing not those people.

I said the solution to (for example and loosely put) world peace is A nash equilibrium. I did not mean to say that is THE nash equilibrium.*

And then I mean to add that the solution also HAPPENS to be good for the individual AND the group. Without giving the solution, or examples of it, this can be shown, ....however, it takes a new (more correct because of the intent of the people that developed/furthered them) understanding of the implication of past game theory concepts.

I have re wrote nothing, but our current projection of the pastly formulated fundamentals of game theory is not correct.

We want to study a game which is comparable to irl....

And poker is the most OBVIOUS target.



*The caution is that in my mind, and to be explained not now, and not here there is no distinction tho

Then there is that thing thing about possibly creating bitcoin.

In order to hide a certain design or function of a certain creation from prying/malicious eyes, or to give a different metaphor in order to continue the momentum needed until the tipping point of flight is needed, the engineer devises a way of creating a project in parts while still maintaining the integrity of its final stage. In this case once the pieces are out there inevitability ensues. Like the parts of a plane created separately but in this instance they fly themselves together to make their result.

The trick is of course dividing the desired result, into parts that represent functions that do not reveal the final project they will become. In the case of bitcoin, the public is left to debate whether or not there could possibly be any worth to it, all the while, its only purpose in the short term is just to exist. Much like a seed laying dormant beneath the soil, unbeknownst to the hungry birds above. Ideal money is the foundation that waters this seed while social media is the fertilizer.

This only leaves us to wonder where do the parts begin, where do they end, and what is to be the final result. In this we must also ask who worked on this project and whether it stops at the man himself, or whether there are others at different level that had there hand in it.

We already alluded to the meeting (possibly just a meet and greet) between nash and Einstein. And we know for our modern society that all the great minds either worked together on projects or separately but on different parts of the same project (namely the atom bomb). And we expect that these peoples did not communicate to this sorts? We know Bohm was locked out of his work, do we really feel he was wasn't prepared for this? Were these men not able to communicate, because of the powers that be kept them from colluding against their power? Or did these men develop ways that were beyond the capabilities of people who consider these great minds their enemies.

I would suggest code was used, specifically cryptography. That while nations were fighting and code breakers were pitted against each other under the formality of war, slowly as these technologies (maths) were advanced, these great minds were able to connect with each others minds and begin projects and vision of their own in a cooperative effort not yet seen before.

This shouldn't be surprising, and we can see in games which involve implicit collusion, such a thing is not possible with players of inferior knowledge. With the greatest minds tho implicit collusion becomes a given, and telepathy ensues since it cannot be shown to be different than simply implicit collusion.

So trying to divide nash from einstein, and the other great minds gets quite difficult, and one begins to wonder about and gray the divisions between all these people, and their contribution the next level of evolution of what we refer to as civilization.

Then we understand that our first form of communication with other life that is (obviously) 'out there' is implicit collusion. And of course in order to initiate such a thing we need to first become worth of such a thing. Because a conflicted and therefore unintelligent society, cannot communicate on these telepathic lines.

One more extremely relevant quote from Nash....

I think we should go back and read this entire thread, or maybe we still don't understand the link that nash is making to Adam Smith...