Prisoners Dilemma - Page 3

Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be.

For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.

On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote: This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?

Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.

On April 21 2012 12:33 NMcNasty wrote: Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be. For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.

its not paradoxal that the more shady the people are in a cooperative game, the lower their EV will be.

This game is NOT poker. Its a game designed so that if both people try to play it from a individual point of view, their EV is 0. Therefore, the only way to make money from it is to make a pact between players. i can't understand how u guys don't see breaking the pact is not shady as hell.

Breaking the pact might not be "illegal", but that doesn't make it right.

This reminds me of an experiment people did where they organized a "game" where people played prisonners and some other people played jail guards. Jail guards were allowed to do awfull things to prisonners, and they actually did it. It was legal whitin the game, but it doesn't make it right, just like its "legal" to betray people for 50K in that game, but i don't see how you guys can ever consider it to be right.

A similar situation is, i remember playing werewolf where the game started on the day where nobody had any info but we were forced to lynch anyways. Sometimes i made pacts with players not to lynch each others on first day to increase both our win rates (just like u can pact in that show to increase both players's EV). If other guy betrayed me i would feel its pretty shady, even tho he didn,t break any game rules or laws.

anyone who would ever play floofy in this game would extract 100% max value every time.

On April 21 2012 14:46 casinocasino wrote: anyone who would ever play floofy in this game would extract 100% max value every time.

But two floofys would make more than two LP game theory specialists, how does that make sense?

On April 20 2012 03:31 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 20 2012 02:26 pluzich wrote: there are people who understand game theory and there are people who don't. Here I see three people who don't - that is the players and capaneo. There are people who have a life and there are losers like you. Just sit down in your underwear in front of your computer and Google and Wikipedia random shit in a hope to try to sound like an expert on every topic while knowing that you have no idea what those things actually are. Game theory? Who da fuck are you to comment about game theory? What have you ever done in your depressing life that makes you think you are an expert on anything? Do something, get some credibility, before you dare to judge other people's knowledge on stuff that you just read about 10min ago? But I know that you will go and spend the rest of your dismal sad life with your pathetic imaginary online friends who are as human as HAL in the Kubrick movie. But probably you have no idea what Im talking about and you are now too embarrassed to Google that one.

you seem like one of the biggest losers/weird kid on this site bro. (from what i've seen in the rofl thread etc.) so get real

On April 21 2012 15:11 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 14:46 casinocasino wrote: anyone who would ever play floofy in this game would extract 100% max value every time. But two floofys would make more than two LP game theory specialists, how does that make sense?

But then you have to trust people and co operate.

On April 21 2012 12:11 TalentedTom wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 11:48 capaneo wrote: WOW! Im surprised how much Nazgul and Talented Tom's moral compass is broken! How can you guys possibly think that she didn't took "his" money and do something EXTREMELY wrong? The money was there to split FOR BOTH OF THEM. They had an agreement and she LIED and manipulated the other person for her personal gain. How can you NOT see that as a problem? If you and I find a treasure for 100k and we decide to split. And you trust me and put me in charge of selling it or sth. Then I screw you over your share. Can I say "your quality of life is the same as before, just move on!" Same as survivor TV show. If you are going around lying and manipulating people you are a fucked up person. Your analogy is flawed, because the money on this show is not guaranteed whereas finding treasure is 100% guaranteed - the EV of a split on this show (even on that 100k one) is not 50k could be closer to 25-30k - whereas the EV of splitting actual treasure of exactly 50/50 (100% of the treasure is realized, whereas on this show often times no one gets anything) , she cant be sure that hes going to fk her, this guy is not her friend, she isn't backstabbing anyone. After watching a few episodes of this show on you tube, there are A LOT of of people with honest faces who take it all. Just because he had a sincere appearance does not mean we should trust him, we don't know whats going on in his mind I think a lot of you are confusing a game show with real life and making it too personal - the purpose of most games is to win. When you are on a game show your primary goal should be to win, otherwise your just wasting time. That's almost like saying I should stop playing this fish heads up because hes down too much money, it's completely irrational thinking. She will likely never have a financial opportunity like this ever again, she took fool advantage of it. I'd have 100% no problem sleeping at night after this (in fact I'd sleep better knowing that I made the highest EV descion)

I understand everything you say. But I think you are falling from the other side of the bridge. I know its a game show. But even a stupid game show (specially on national TV) is STILL part of real life!

The so called "real life" its an aggregated result of all these small events. If she was my business partner doing this on a TV game show. I would immediately break up any tie to that person (financially or others). Because that kind of person will screw you in "real life" and would say: "this is just business and not real life".

I used to play Risk or other stupid games with people at high school and stuff. There were people who would cheat to win the Risk game. And those were also the people who would cheat at school. Those were the people who would rat you out for their benefit. And those were the people who would also steal food and stupid shit from peoples bags. Every little event IS part of real life.

If you're with two game theory specialists, you need to agree to pick each other's balls and then make 25% each. Honest people still do better.

don't private message me capaneo you weirdo

Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion

Poll: Is capaneo one of the biggest losers/weird kids on this site
(Vote): yes
(Vote): no
(Vote): who the fuck am I to comment on game theory?

I think pretty much everybody would save 1 friend over 20 strangers but thats not the same as thinking its "ok" to screw strangers over.

Treating everybody well (esp ppl you dont know) and caring for them can actually improve your happiness level a great deal.

right I agree its +EV to treat everyone well, just using an extreme example to illustrate a simple point (maybe i should stop doing that lol)

On April 21 2012 16:29 traxamillion wrote: don't private message me capaneo you weirdo

Reason I PMed you is that I didn't want to detail the thread. If you want to be a baby about it go ahead. I know you don't like me. You have already expressed your opinion, now fuck off my thread.

PS: I'm sorry that I molested you in my PM.

On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote: Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion

This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now.

But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain.

My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high.
And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.

Do you give that speech to yourself every night before you cry youself to sleep ?

On April 21 2012 12:40 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote: This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract? Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.

You trolling or are u serious ?
How is an oral contract something you could be sued over :/
Seems like bs to me

Also capaneo honestly? The definition of the word "friend" is different for every person and its limits are different as well, if you have doubts about some "friend " of yours that would stick it to you for his personal gain but you r still hanging out with the guy it doesnt make him a "friend". It makes him the asshole you like to hang out with. Real friendships are formed over really long periods of time so its not the best way to argument your point .... Just admit it already, you are wrong :/
World is harsh, yes nobody cares about strangers and yes TT would gladly sacrafice your, mine and 18 other guys from this forum lifes for his friend's life and thats understandable. Such trust and faith in other persons is the thing that makes us form relationships on the first place

And yeah its +EV to treat every unknown person well. On another note i find anyone that treats strangers bad a complete idiot, since he could be poking a kitten or he could be poking the freaking godzilla that way. However this game show is a whole other discussion

P.S. I 100% bet you dont treat everyone the same way capaneo thats bullshit its impossible to achieve this and its not worth it either

On April 21 2012 17:01 MiPwnYa wrote: Treating everybody well (esp ppl you dont know) and caring for them can actually improve your happiness level a great deal.

thats bs too imo .. im like that and my happiness level doesnt really change based on that + you cant really "care" for a stranger, that would put you on the extreme side of "good" where if you r not surrounded with persons that care for you you could get psychologically fucked and swing through the edges
you probably dont understand what im talking about, but i dont feel like writing more about it

On April 21 2012 19:32 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On April 21 2012 12:40 NMcNasty wrote:   On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote: This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract? Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions. You trolling or are u serious ? How is an oral contract something you could be sued over :/ Seems like bs to me

If the oral contract is legally binding I don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue for breach of contract. What I wrote isn't actually happening though.