Prisoners Dilemma - Page 12

holy shit wall of text. im sure there' some quality post to be read.. but i shall pass this one

There are two big differences with poker;

- Bluffing is only lying if you think a raise represents a good hand. If you before the game agree that raising represents a good hand, it would be a lot more immoral to bluff. however, instead most beginners are explained that a raise does *not* necessarily represent a good hand.

- in poker *everybody* expects to deceive and be deceived, in this game it's not as clear cut. for example, you could argue that while poker is fun to play even while deceiving each other, the golden balls game is no fun at all, you just leave with nothing every time. So the golden balls game, at least some people are not going to be prepared for a game of deceive or be deceived, whereas in poker, everybody expects to get bluffed.

On April 26 2012 19:50 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different. I think locoo is the one who's got it right in the end: with your view (that all games showcase the values of someone irl, aka it's a test) you cannot logically reconcile your profession with that belief. Your only argument is a flawed one: just because you see this game as a game of skill doesn't mean that it is so for everyone. And by this I mean that you may be using skills/knowledge amassed over time of studying this game, but the other player might not be - he doesn't have to be. He can just walk in a casino, being bored, and wanting to try this game. Or download the software. You know this, you know that many people play it even though they don't have any skills. They are also not trying to play better, or to compete with you. In your argument you comfortably assume that it is always a competition that is agreed upon and that everyone joins a game with his set of skills and with the intention of outsmarting others. But this isn't chess, or StarCraft - it is not purely a strategy game simply because strategy can be used. This is a game where as long as you have the money to post your blinds, you are welcomed and have the right to play, no matter what is going on in your mind at that time. Just to stir things up a little bit, assuming you always believed this way, it would mean that you have always been happier playing people who know what they were doing, since you genuinely outsmarted people who were doing their best as well to outsmart you, than people who didn't. But is this really the case? Who, in fact, are you generally happier playing against, someone you will be proud of outwitting if you win, or someone who has no idea what he's doing? Which do most poker players - and I should emphasize smart poker players - actively seek out? People who made poker their profession? They had to build a bankroll, and a bankroll certainly doesn't build very fast if all they ever do is make sure their opponents are pretty smart. The answer is right here as to why your argument is not a valid one, and unless a game is purely strategic it cannot work. Poker is a game of greed before it is one of strategy. Simply take an honest look at how devastated people are when they lose in poker compared to losing at a pure strategy game. The others get upset, sure, but they never reach that level of despair that so many gamblers have experienced, and I'm not just talking about degenerates who have ruined their lives, I'm talking about people crying even though they have not lost anything, and in fact often even have won money, life-changing money. They are devastated they didn't win more, because it's a game of greed. If you compare tournament poker and StarCraft for example, and take the scenario of a finals, you know that the one who finishes runner-up in the StarCraft tournament is more upset about being outwitted than the runner-up at a final table of the large poker tournament is. The latter is more concerned with the money almost every time, while the SC player is probably already going over his strategical mistakes in that final game that cost him the first place, and feeling upset he was outplayed. The money is secondary almost every time here, if we remove the unlikely scenarios where the money would be a matter of life and death or near it.

god damn

u and baal should have a talk show

I hope loco has a philosophy blog or something, would be interesting to read.

On April 25 2012 06:58 Ket wrote: That is infact why we have most laws, so we can punish and deter people from acting solely in their own interest to maximise personal EV in an environment where most people are acting both in their interest and that of the group (what's best for everyone). If there were no consequences, would you mug anyone who looks defenceless on the street like old ladies? The EV of doing that is pretty high for the effort so why not maximise EV? If you saw someone mugging an old lady would you be like "nice one bro way to maximise EV there, wp!" or would you want that person removed from society? This game is a simulation of real life where there are no consequences to mugging an old lady (besides showing you'll sell you integrity for pretty cheap on national tv), and it's disturbing that people think it's standard to not do the right thing that everyone should do, and take advantage of those that do, just because there's no consequence and it's "just a game".

I am assuming that a reasonable person would find the idea of mugging an old lady repulsive because he'd hate to live in a society that treats the elderly like that, same goes for killing random strangers for fun etc. There is a huge difference between a law and a moral obligation.
If you blame someone for stealing from an old lady it should be for his short sightedness, because every time someone does anything, it is what he (by his own standards and experiences) perceives as the most +EV. You are doing what you consider the most +EV move by not stealing the old lady. As a side note, those who find the most pleasure in pointing moral fingers (not saying it's you) are usually those who need cheap psychological tricks to boost their own sense of power, because people of sharp intellectual honesty know full well that -in it's core- altruistic behavior is not what it seems.

Your idea of group +EV maximization as the moral choice is flawed for the same reason that the proposition of a universal morality is flawed; a morality suggested as suitable for every person is a
morality that ignores every person's crucial characteristics required for his well being. There are many examples of the altruistic behavior ending up being harmful for society, or where killing could be hugely +EV for the group etc. People make laws and change them on these depending on necessity or other factors; to go ahead and call any human construct like morality "universal" is as religious as believing in the ten commandments.

If rules like the 10 commandments feel "common sense" or "instinctively good" it's not because we have a secret compass for what's truly moral -something one can understand easily by all the diff shit people did throughout history and different cultural environments. It's because we grew up in this civilization.For people who (genuinely) base decisions/judgement on "what feels right" (again not directed @Ket), this quote from Nietzsche is awesome and applies well:
The inspiration born of a feeling is the grandchild of a judgment – and often of a false judgment! – and in any event not a child of your own! To trust one’s feelings—means to give more obedience to one’s grandfather and grandmother and their grandparents than to the gods which are in us: our reason and our experience

I think one thing that might confuse people here is that the reward for stealing over splitting when our opponent goes split is 2x what it would be if we chose steal. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

For example, the game show could just award each person $500,000 if they both choose split, but award only one person $500,020 if that person chooses steal while the other splits, while the one who splits gets nothing.

In that scenario, according to game theory, its still best to choose steal cuz u can get that extra $20. Choosing steal still strategically dominates choosing split. I don't think anyone's faith in game theory goes that far though.

Or:

If you both steal you both get shot to death.
If you both split you both live.
If you steal while your opponent splits, you get $20 and he gets shot to death.

Again, still game-theory correct to steal, but I would hope some sort of morality sets in at this point.

On May 02 2012 15:54 NMcNasty wrote: I think one thing that might confuse people here is that the reward for stealing over splitting when our opponent goes split is 2x what it would be if we chose steal. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. For example, the game show could just award each person $500,000 if they both choose split, but award only one person $500,020 if that person chooses steal while the other splits, while the one who splits gets nothing. In that scenario, according to game theory, its still best to choose steal cuz u can get that extra $20. Choosing steal still strategically dominates choosing split. I don't think anyone's faith in game theory goes that far though. Or: If you both steal you both get shot to death. If you both split you both live. If you steal while your opponent splits, you get $20 and he gets shot to death. Again, still game-theory correct to steal, but I would hope some sort of morality sets in at this point.

20$ isn't even worth the acting or the negative comments on you tube/TV man =)

On April 26 2012 19:50 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different. I think locoo is the one who's got it right in the end: with your view (that all games showcase the values of someone irl, aka it's a test) you cannot logically reconcile your profession with that belief. Your only argument is a flawed one: just because you see this game as a game of skill doesn't mean that it is so for everyone. And by this I mean that you may be using skills/knowledge amassed over time of studying this game, but the other player might not be - he doesn't have to be. He can just walk in a casino, being bored, and wanting to try this game. Or download the software. You know this, you know that many people play it even though they don't have any skills. They are also not trying to play better, or to compete with you. In your argument you comfortably assume that it is always a competition that is agreed upon and that everyone joins a game with his set of skills and with the intention of outsmarting others. But this isn't chess, or StarCraft - it is not purely a strategy game simply because strategy can be used. This is a game where as long as you have the money to post your blinds, you are welcomed and have the right to play, no matter what is going on in your mind at that time. Just to stir things up a little bit, assuming you always believed this way, it would mean that you have always been happier playing people who know what they were doing, since you genuinely outsmarted people who were doing their best as well to outsmart you, than people who didn't. But is this really the case? Who, in fact, are you generally happier playing against, someone you will be proud of outwitting if you win, or someone who has no idea what he's doing? Which do most poker players - and I should emphasize smart poker players - actively seek out? People who made poker their profession? They had to build a bankroll, and a bankroll certainly doesn't build very fast if all they ever do is make sure their opponents are pretty smart. The answer is right here as to why your argument is not a valid one, and unless a game is purely strategic it cannot work. Poker is a game of greed before it is one of strategy. Simply take an honest look at how devastated people are when they lose in poker compared to losing at a pure strategy game. The others get upset, sure, but they never reach that level of despair that so many gamblers have experienced, and I'm not just talking about degenerates who have ruined their lives, I'm talking about people crying even though they have not lost anything, and in fact often even have won money, life-changing money. They are devastated they didn't win more, because it's a game of greed. If you compare tournament poker and StarCraft for example, and take the scenario of a finals, you know that the one who finishes runner-up in the StarCraft tournament is more upset about being outwitted than the runner-up at a final table of the large poker tournament is. The latter is more concerned with the money almost every time, while the SC player is probably already going over his strategical mistakes in that final game that cost him the first place, and feeling upset he was outplayed. The money is secondary almost every time here, if we remove the unlikely scenarios where the money would be a matter of life and death or near it.

Didnt expect this from you, i have refuted that argument at leat 3 times now, poker is not like this game because in poker at all times i am being honest and we both know that we are trying to outwit each other for profit, i would always stick to a verbal agreement in poker even if i am able to angle shoot, bluffing is not "lying", as making a feint in basketball isnt lying either, on that game its a lie, its breaking a direct verbal agreement for profit, that is oportunity theft in my eyes.

I do enjoy more playing competent opponets, same reason why i play few highstakes tables rather than mass tabling lower stakes, i enjoy the challenge but i do consider money as well, reason why i dont move up higher, so yeah i enjoy way more playing competent opponents (as any real poker player does), however its my job and making a profit its also important the big difference is that i dont make any immoral act.

Ive seen many people cry in defeat in many sports so many times, since there is a lot of money in poker involved its only natural that there are more emotions there than there normaly is, how does that make it inmoral in any way, if somebody bets 10k in a sports event they are going to be in tornado of emotions, their decision could be stupid or wise, but not inmoral.