game theory?

what is it?

The goal keeper's anxiety at the penalty kick.

wikipedia:

start with the prisoner's dilemma (the mother of all game theory games...essentially the premise behind split or steal)

then take a look at evolutionary psychology

poker

the ultimatum game

newcomb's problem

doping in sports and padding resumes

nuclear war and mutually-assured destruction

the sexual arms race

abstract stuff:

bayesian analysis

nash equilibrium

psychology

"standard gamble"

behavioral economics

signalling theory

it's a huge huge field...lemme know if you want me to blather about any specific aspect

a mathematical discipline articulated by John Nash and other early pioneers in the fields of discrete math and computer science. used to describe the interactions of complex elements in various 'states of play', like a 'game'. often cited by pretentious cunts in discussions to which it is not particularly relevant or enlightening, because of its appeal in popular science.

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:31 AM, usagi said:

a mathematical discipline articulated by John Nash and other early pioneers in the fields of discrete math and computer science. used to describe the interactions of complex elements in various 'states of play', like a 'game'. often cited by pretentious cunts in discussions to which it is not particularly relevant or enlightening, because of its appeal in popular science.

wow get a life dude

and since you're so knowledgeable on the topic

could you give us all an example of a Nash equilibrium?

(without consulting the internet, of course)

limpyloo is the kind of guy who is an "expert" in everything, his posts are long but if you pay attention they say nothing, and for the most part repeats the same point on multiple posts.

Usagi dont fall for this shit, you are much better than this, look what is happening in the north korea thread

oh and game theory is a gameboy knock off.

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:38 AM, LimpyLoo said:

and since you're so knowledgeable on the topic

could you give us all an example of a Nash equilibrium?

(without consulting the internet, of course)

no, because I haven't studied it enough to be able to talk about it intelligently in a conversation on WATMM, to which it is probably largely irrelevant anyway. and neither have you.

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:45 AM, Deer said:

look what is happening in the north korea thread

I shudder.

game theory + watmm = oysters clams and cuckolds

was nash a console gamer? if yes then fuck him.

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:49 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:38 AM, LimpyLoo said:

and since you're so knowledgeable on the topic

could you give us all an example of a Nash equilibrium?

(without consulting the internet, of course)

 

no, because I haven't studied it enough to be able to talk about it intelligently in a conversation on WATMM, to which it is probably largely irrelevant anyway. and neither have you.

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:45 AM, Deer said:

look what is happening in the north korea thread

 

I shudder.

 

i play poker for a living

game theory is literally my job

so once again you're mistaken

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:45 AM, Deer said:

limpyloo is the kind of guy who is an "expert" in everything, his posts are long but if you pay attention they say nothing, and for the most part repeats the same point on multiple posts.

 

Usagi dont fall for this shit, you are much better than this, look what is happening in the north korea thread

 

oh and game theory is a gameboy knock off.

i don't claim to be an expert about anything

you were saying this same shit in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread

when i was talking about opiates

"don't believe him, he's got a story for everything!"

like i was pretending to be a heroin addict to look cool or something

there's only a handful of things i talk confidently about

and anytime i post in a thread you say this same shit

"limpyloo claims to be an expert at everything!"

lol no i don't

look at all the threads active on watmm

and you'll see that i don't post in 90% of them

because i know nothing about any of that stuff

  On 7/17/2015 at 4:26 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:49 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:38 AM, LimpyLoo said:

and since you're so knowledgeable on the topic

could you give us all an example of a Nash equilibrium?

(without consulting the internet, of course)

 

no, because I haven't studied it enough to be able to talk about it intelligently in a conversation on WATMM, to which it is probably largely irrelevant anyway. and neither have you.

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:45 AM, Deer said:

look what is happening in the north korea thread

 

I shudder.

 

 

i play poker for a living

game theory is literally my job

 

hahahahaha

don't sweat it limpy, some people just can't handle their entrenched ideologies being threatened. even if I disagreed with everything you said, you put it across in a sober and rational manner, if people can't deal with that shit they should either shut up, or respond in kind. the childish bickering it seems to cause on here is pretty pathetic imho (not from everyone of course, but you know who you are).

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:49 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:38 AM, LimpyLoo said:

and since you're so knowledgeable on the topic

could you give us all an example of a Nash equilibrium?

(without consulting the internet, of course)

 

no, because I haven't studied it enough to be able to talk about it intelligently in a conversation on WATMM, to which it is probably largely irrelevant anyway. and neither have you.

 

  On 7/17/2015 at 3:45 AM, Deer said:

look what is happening in the north korea thread

 

I shudder.

 

so let me get this straight...

you accuse me of pretending to know anything about game theory to seem cool or whatever (because game theory is so cool)

and then you come in here and...pretend to know anything about game theory?!? (umm ironi-lol)

if you don't know what a nash equilibrium is, then why the hell are are doing in this thread? trying to get in a pissing match with me everywhere i post?

that's some middle-school shit, usagi

seriously lol

What are the odds

that I can open a possibly-interesting thread on WATMM

and it not devolve into a shitfest within the first 10 posts?

Game me a theory on that

yo

10 posts¿ that's damn ambitious, man.

Alright then, let's do some Bayesian analysis on dat

We gotta figure the frequency with which:

-threads on watmm are 'possibly-interesting' (PI)

-threads devolve into shitfest within 10 posts (SF)

%(PI) x %(SF) = auxien

But actually you said NOT devolve into shitfest

So then we get

%(PI) x [100 - %(SF)] = auxien

But then you probably don't read every single possbly-interesting thread

So we need the frequency with which you open up a possibly-interesting thread (AO)

%(PI) x [100 - %(SF)] x %(AO) = auxien

If you can figure out all those frequencies, then we can plug em in and get an answer

PI=10%

SF=75%

AO=50%

If I did my bed-time algebra correctly then there's a 1.25% chance of a possibly-interesting thread (which I open and read) not devolving into a shitfest within ten posts.

Amazing, that's slightly higher than I thought.

let's see if i can remember:

Firm B's output will be on the left and firm A's output will be on the right in each quadrant (since I can't do tables in the board there will be no lines, so hopefully this is clear)

FIRM A's OUTPUT

One-half Two-Thirds

Monopoly Monopoly

Profit Profit

F O One-half

I U Monopoly 20|20 15|22

R T Profit

M P

U

B' T Two-thirds

s Monopoly 22|15 17|17

Profit

Where's the Nash Equilibrium? Explain your answer, and what are the implications of a Nash equilibrium?

sex

is this about Game of Thrones?

I think I've heard of it

  On 7/17/2015 at 6:41 AM, chenGOD said:

let's see if i can remember:

 

 

 

Firm B's output will be on the left and firm A's output will be on the right in each quadrant (since I can't do tables in the board there will be no lines, so hopefully this is clear)

 

FIRM A's OUTPUT

One-half Two-Thirds

Monopoly Monopoly

Profit Profit

 

F O One-half

I U Monopoly 20|20 15|22

R T Profit

M P

U

B' T Two-thirds

s Monopoly 22|15 17|17

Profit

 

 

Where's the Nash Equilibrium? Explain your answer, and what are the implications of a Nash equilibrium?

So, a Nash equilibrium occurs when players can no longer exploit each other. The behavior of both players will 'settle' into a Nash equilibrium.

Here, there is a question as to whether the two firms can comminucate beforehand, and whether there are meta-game reasons not to cooperate. But if the firms are especially unfriendly they"ll just go in circles trying to exploit each other. And since there is no way to avoid being exploited...

Bah I just woke up to piss and now I'm trying to solve game theory puzzles. Alright lemme think here...

Okay, so the 'super-rational' solution (if they were playing against a mirror) then they would both choose 'one-half'. This is also the 'cooperate' solution. What I remember about the Prisoner's Dilemma with the classic payouts was that the (paradoxical) Nash equilibrium was that they both defect, as they both then cannot be exploited. So it must be that 17/17 is the Nash equilibrium...but no because they can still be exploited, so...

There is no Nash equilibrium.

(I think...I dunno, I'm bloody tired)

dank memes.

(or perhaps I should just say "that's not realistic" so I don't actually have to think about it or solve it, and instead just berate you for posing such an unrealistic problem)