To: somebody at academia



I have some experience in applications of game theory having been fascinated by the concept in my teenage years and through applying it in a multitude of games. it is really a very simple complexity now, accepting that a nash equilbria exists for any formal model we choose to look at. I do however question the existence of an equilibrium in the formal sense, and in fact have recently been questioning the existence of nash equilibria altogether in games like rock paper scissors where there are unknowns in the equation. of course nash implies picking randomly, but this is not synanamous with nature as true randominity cannot be simulated by humans(and neither the compuers we've given birth to, as far as i know)

I've played poker for several years now, since i was fifteen, over the internet. I was studying game theory and in fact viewed your videos which were uploaded over youtube and learnt alot about how to think from them. I thank yourself and Yale for putting them up for free.

How can a game such as rock paper scissors have a true equilibrium? if you pick random then it shouldn't matter what i pick, i could pick rock the whole time i could pick a mixture of the three or whatever. but how do they interact with each other, on a deeper level, once we accept randomness doesn't exist? how does it affect the game when we have three players, all knowing that randomness is the long term equilbria but never being able to choose a truly random pattern distribution? for me it seems these sort of equilibriums boil down to more of a brute force, pychological and computational problem, and is similiar in ways to P versus NP.. but equilibrium only holds so long as the one watching us play, the shuffle mechanism in cards, the dice in backgammon, the randomness in rock paper scissors etc etc, holds true, a dictatorship over probability in a marxist fashion. but lets not pretend that it adds up.

Applications of game theory when introducing complex physics and quantum physics really starts to confuse things even more. I understand that the shuffle mechanism on pokerstars, a website i play on, uses quantum random number generators for the shuffling mechanism. It would then stand to argue that as we are part of the time it takes to make our actions, we are part of the game, we are part of the whole mechanisms and by understanding this and observing it, we should surely affect how the game is played, as quantum physics states observation affects. it's a laughable assertion though really because i don't for any second doubt quantum physics logicality whilst still feeling underwhelmed by how simple its assertions are. of course who we look at and how we look at them affects their response. that's basic socialization.

thought it would be good to reopen discussions. Will link OP later, and will also refrain from posting and let discussion flow freely, s I feel like that was my mistake previously. f this gets locked I will give up on forums, at least smp...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...ories-1531836/

OP

**** game theory split the atomic atom quantum physics poetry etc etc you just don't understand ... University languages is too complex for most persons myself included

Game theory optimization. I know you know so I change my strategy and then you do as well so have to balance frequencies of betting patterns so that your strategy isn't exploited

Hey Olangotang.


Regarding the bolded section of your quote.

Yes.


It isn't common knowledge and most of those that will explore the line shall sooner convince themselves of having gone mad rather than acknowledging their growing awareness that there is absolutely nill.nill% chance that quantum mechanics functions everywhere in the universe with the exception of poker tables.

A great example of this is via brick and mortar games with a designated dealer. Person A fail-tank calls for their stack, having taken 5 minutes, the dealer without even being consciously aware of it, is slightly frustrated and upon receiving the cards, pushes them into the muck a touch more aggressively. This causes the cards to enter into the deck at a different angle then had the cards been insta folded or the call made before the dealer became tilted. So now the deck, before even entering into the shuffle machine has a different set up due to the slightest of variables.
See also: Billy Bob playing 3c,8s from UTG because they got bored. This rather simple patience fail has literally altered the entirety of the deck.

When a weeks profit can get smashed in a single hand against a one outer, it baffles me people still choose to mess with the deck ordering instead of just using some discipline. Billy Bob is the kind of player that will complain they get no hands for an entire night and where 'forced' to 'make do' with what they got and then go onto despair at their horrible variance when their AA's got smashed after a few hours of bluffs with stupid hands. Was going to try complete this without using the word Karma. I cannot though.



Going to end on a sombre note. This line of thought can be incredibly consuming, there are so many lines to connect and you'll literally forget to eat some days.
Balance the lifestyle. Ensure the logical-you stays healthy before you feed the intuitive-you with more things to process.

Thankyou for your response. I have gone days without sleeping or eating, but currently I am well. I thank you deeply from my soul. best of luck, please post more often and try to word your arguments in a way to elicit positive responses on the forums because i feel I understand exactly the question you posed to this forum but their was semantic difficulties in understanding the intricacies.

You are quite correct most people see themselves as separate to the game and if they realised they were part of it it would drive them to madness. But it is true. John Nash died today and now Nash equilibria will break apart and people will realise the game is chaotic and that judgements affect the dealership. I look forward to the new age of poker, Game theory is dead

I really like this thread it would be great to see more disscussion on this. I feel poker will eventually move towards this way once more people start opening their minds.

To put it in a very simple way this is how I belive reality works.
Your Belief Thought and emotion put together with everyother observers belief thought and emotion brings the result. What ever unfolding possibility fits best with all that is the result

This type of game theory can go very deep and would be fun to talk about.

Note on bolded part: This often leads to vast oceans of silliness.

What kind of life experiences must one live through to think like the OP?

Okay, I posted a link about the death of John Nash in the Internet Poker forum thread because I thought it be significant to those using Bitcoin for their transactions. It was closed there, however, and linked to the NVG forum thread.

John Nash's theories are very significant to crypto-currency technology also. Some even believe that Bitcoin was created by Nash himself. His death is stirring up complex debates on the subject as we speak, AND the valuation of Bitcoin may be effected by the news of Nash's accident. Just a prognostication.

Bitcoiners, watch the market....it might get "swingy" in the days to come.

Pleas explain the bolded part of your quote. Not that I'm familiar with all of Nash's work, but I was under the impression the greatest contribution that Bitcoin brings is the block chaining/currency creation process which doesn't sound like much of what I'm familiar with what Nash did, it sounds more like computer science.

Nash, during on of his more psychologically disorganized periods, sent a weird note to the Feds about an idea he had for cryptography.

http://m.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/...h_letters1.pdf

a whole lot of paranoia, delusions, egencies watching and understanding me, sent mass emails to lots of universities (never got much of a reply) and a lot more I won't talk about on here (just yet)

I'd like to see more discussion since this is pretty much all i have to show for the years of mental illness i've suffered

Backward induction
Backward induction is a technique to solve a game of perfect information. It first considers
the moves that are the last in the game, and determines the best move for the player
in each case. Then, taking these as given future actions, it proceeds backwards in time,
again determining the best move for the respective player, until the beginning of the game
is reached.


Is forward induction a thing that can tackle game theory, or not due to trees diverging too exponents?

reverse engineering a game interupts flow in a causal time framework, so evolving dynamic games can never be understood pre parameter wise (?)

I might do a piece of chaos art theory to put thoughts into a picture this week

I guess a better question would be can forward induction solve a game of 100% information for that quote. But I am learning

essentilly can you rationalise a game of complete information with quasi infinite computer power/brains/AI

and is implied induction/time causality induction a thing in models where time is a factor

is this to do with vectors/matrices, I don't want to talk words i've long forgot (never understood the concept of vectorial equations at school, i just plugged equations formulaicly, but linearly in different dimensions I sort of grasp)

Here buddy this'll cheer you up. 1:31-1:41 definitely on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTurgi8woVU

At first I was all like... OH COOL A GAME THEORY THREAD.

Then I was like ...ah wat.

Then I was like. My self already know that im ok.

...walking out on me today...lol


Seriously what is going on here? Just because something is or may not be random but pseudo random, unless you know what mechanism creates it, how can that change that it looks unpredictable to the point to make it exploitable?

For some games, the optimal strategy is to not play.


PairTheBoard

Succinct wisdom. But difficult for most to follow. I did however, and am eternally grateful for this enlightenment that I received under the Bodhi tree.

Watch out for them games and that pesky fun that people seem to have on them. ☠️

Equlibrium is when deviation from the strategy makes your outcome worse. By playing all rock you make yourself exploitable (by a shift to all paper strategy). So all-rock is obviously worse than random. Nash equilibrium is only applicable if both (all) players are aware of the optimal strategy and use it.

I usually come at it from information theory. if your opponent gives off usable information then there's a strategy that can exploit this information.
Randomness (a random sequence) does not contain information (as per Shannon's definition of information). Any deviation from a random sequence contains a correlation element in the sequence and thus gives off information.

You're just rephrasing the impact of an observer in quantum physics. But that's not how it works (and the various tests on the Bell inequality have demonstrated as much).

No, "just being part of the game" doesn't influence the outcome of a quantum random generator ...which is probably nothing more than a timer, a photdetector and a weakly radioactive element...like the one used for 'hotbits'
https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/