|
Oblivion4568238 posted:if they even use a similar reasoning in the first place, instead of just choosing at random! This is the key point. There are basically two paths we can take, game theory optimal (GTO) play or exploitative play. What you're describing is exploitative, but with literally no play history to go on, it's really shaky justification for any move. GTO play at this stage would be a purely random throw, I believe. Sadly the rules forbid a true random throw, so I'm going to say Paper. We can't assume our opponent is going to be exploitative right out of the gate, and we definitely can't assume they're going to be counter-exploitative right out of the gate. Paper beats the most statistically likely throw and draws against the exploitative throw, and so seems to me the safest option.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
A sample size of one is too small to say that they are playing exploitatively, but they did make the exploitative throw (and not, I should point out, the counter-exploitative throw). Since we lost, we would now be expected to switch to the sign that wasn't beaten (in this instance, scissors, since it wouldn't be beaten by paper). If they are playing exploitatively, they will throw rock to beat our scissors. Now you may be expecting me to advocate paper, then, to beat their rock. But no, I'm voting Rock. First of all, because we aren't sure about their exploitative play yet. Second, because the psychology of the game also says that a player is unlikely to throw the same sign three times, it sets us up for throwing a round 3 rock against an expected scissors (since they would assume it's safe to throw the sign that loses to rock, our least likely pick).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Now you may be expecting me to advocate paper, then, to beat their rock. But no, I'm voting Rock. First of all, because we aren't sure about their exploitative play yet. Second, because the psychology of the game also says that a player is unlikely to throw the same sign three times, it sets us up for throwing a round 3 rock against an expected scissors (since they would assume it's safe to throw the sign that loses to rock, our least likely pick). Time to put this plan into action. Rock EDIT: Also we can pretty reliably put them on exploitative play now. Meaning they would expect us to switch to paper (which wouldn't lose against rock) and thus themselves switch to scissors. Rock beats scissors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Rock
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
The last tie was with Paper. They expected us to do the 'normal' thing and switch to scissors, and played exploitatively. They will expect us to switch to paper now and thus throw scissors. So paper is out. That said, gently caress it SCISSOR KICK
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:(at which point they also will and we'll tie again jesus christ) Our team's secret weapon is to tie so often that the other team quits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Double down on scissors!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Scissors
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Rock
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Rock
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Rock
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
On the one hand, they didn't go Rock 5 times in a row. On the other hand, we switched out after losing with scissors twice in a row. They may think both patterns stick. Throwing Rock would likely be unexpected.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Time for me to analyze again. Hopefully this won't be too results-oriented, but my goal here is to try to decipher the decision-making process behind their moves. So, let's look at their behavior, and discuss what's exploitative, what's counter-exploitative, and what's GTO: Round 1: We throw rock, the expected/most likely opening. They exploit with paper, and win. Round 2: If we had stuck with expectations, we would have moved to the throw that would have won round 1, scissors. They threw rock to exploit, but we tied. Where does that leave them? There's no solid exploitative play to follow a tie. Arguably, they could have reverted back to a round 1 strategy. Equally arguably, they could have expected a repeat throw. Either way: Round 3: They expect us to throw rock. They throw paper to exploit, but we tie. What could they learn from this? That either expectations were wrong (after a tie, we cycle to the next throw), or we are adopting exploitative throws (expecting them to throw rock with the same reasoning they used to expect us to throw rock). If the former were true, they would expect us to throw scissors next (cycling to the next throw). If the latter, they would expect us to throw paper to exploit rock (if they think we put them on reverting to rock after a tie) or scissors to exploit paper (if they think we think they repeat). But game history shows they don't revert to rock on a tie, so they rule that out. The upshot: Round 4: They expect us to exploit and throw scissors. They throw rock to counter-exploit, but we tie. Now they may be confused. We aren't playing exploitatively. Either we went to the bog standard rock opening again, or we're counter-exploiting and they have to go one level deeper. But! Game history shows that after we tied with rock before, we went paper. Do they go by theory, or history? If they think we're exploiting, they would expect scissors to exploit history's paper. If they think we're historical, they would expect paper as before. They decide: Round 5: They expect us to exploit and throw scissors. They throw rock, and win. Now they have us. They've put us on exploitative play. They know we won't throw paper, the throw that would have won us the previous round, because we've moved off expected plays from round 2. Their own history from round 1 to 2 shows that they don't adhere to "winner stays" and they know we know that, so they can't reliably counter-exploit. But with paper ruled out: Round 6: They throw rock, knowing they can do no worse than tie. They win. At this point they actually HAVE adhered to the "winner stays" expectation. But the considerations for round 7 are almost the same as round 6. We've shown we won't make expected plays anymore. And even if we surprise them, they're up 3-0 and can take a loss. But by now they have thrown 3 rocks in a row, and they might be thinking that we don't expect a fourth. It's less certain but odds are very low that we throw paper. Round 7: They throw rock, almost knowing they can do no worse than tie. They tie. So round 8 comes around, they're trying to lock up the sweep, and it's the first tie in a while. So they look at what happened before. Go back to round 4, where we tied with rock. What did we do then? We threw scissors and lost to their rock. Both teams have demonstrated they won't stick to one style of play. But we've tied with rock three times now: first we cycled to paper and tied again, second we cycled to scissors and lost. We haven't had any success, only tying. Do they expect us to stick to rock this time? If anything, they ought to rule out scissors (since we lost with it) and therefore throw paper, knowing they can at worst tie against paper and at best win against rock. But they don't. They throw rock for a fifth time. Why? The only justification I can see is if they felt that by throwing rock four times in a row, it would stop us from throwing paper, since we would never expect a fifth rock in a row. That would leave rock and scissors for us to throw, and their safe throw becomes: Round 8: They throw rock, possibly because they ruled out paper and made rock no worse than a tie. We throw rock and tie. So we have another rock-rock tie. We've followed rock-rock ties up first with paper, then scissors, now rock. We've cycled around, and they may put us on paper for the next throw. Additionally, we have not thrown the same move three times in a row to this point. History rules out rock, expected play is paper, either way: Round 9: They throw scissors, either to exploit an expected paper or because they rule out rock. We throw rock, and win. There may be some more confusion at this point. But this is new territory, our first win. They don't know how we'll respond, but we haven't been on strictly expected play in a while. If we were on expected play, we would throw rock next because winner stays. If we were on exploitative play, we would throw scissors next against an expected play of paper. But neither team is playing to expectations, and both teams know it. If they can't throw paper (against the expected play of rock), and they can't counter-exploit with rock (because it requires them to think we would assume they throw the expected move), that leaves scissors. It also defies the "loser moves" expectation, as a bonus. Or maybe that's the main reason and I'm too deep into yomi in my analysis. Round 10: They throw scissors, in order to be unexpected on some level. We throw rock, and win. It's now 3-2, things aren't looking too good for them. Not only did we throw rock four times in a row, but we succeeded with a "winner stays" play, just like they did. Our style is clearly changing again. Maybe they think we're just aping the five-rocks pattern, maybe they think we're going to stick with "winner stays" and play standard, expected moves. But either way, it's back to basics for them. Either they were too deep into yomi or not deep enough last round; either way, it's time to exploit. Round 11: They throw paper to exploit an expected rock. We throw scissors and win. Where does that leave us now? We just demonstrated exploitative play, immediately after expected play. They may think we set them up for it. They may think we're completely in their heads. So let's look at the possibilities from their point of view: 1. We play standard, "winner stays," and throw scissors again. 2. We expect them to throw rock (would have won last round) and exploit with paper. If they think we are on either of these plans, they would throw scissors. It ties against expected play, and wins against exploitative play. If this analysis is correct, we should throw Rock. CirclMastr fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Betray
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Dr. Fetus posted:He even attempted to cheat at Rock Paper Scissors previously. That was yesterday. He was probated for what he just did, not some previous incident.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 18:45
|
|