04-11-2004, 04:25 AM
Hi,
My (extremely limited) understanding of game theory suggests that people often don't behave in what would seem to be the 'most logical' way when presented with a choice or decision, and especially not when more than one person is involved.
There are a few problems involved here. First (and it's been a long time, so anyone willing to refresh my memory is more than welcome) only zero sum two "person" games are proven to have a solution. If more than two parties are involved, or if the game is not zero sum (value can be created or destroyed) then there might be a solution and there might not.
Second, using a game theory strategy (where one exists) guarantees the best result (which might be negative) against a player also playing optimally. But when the very meaning of the concept of "best result" is defined differently by the two "players" (i.e, when one player is the "capitalistic West" and the other is the "Soviet Block"), it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to even define the games' goals. Which makes the calculation of a strategy rather tough.
Furthermore, even in a simple, zero sum, two-player game (say heads up poker) the "ideal" (as defined by game theory) strategy might not be the best. Against the same opponent, a player playing according to game theory would not do as well as a player who modified his strategy in accordance with the opponents weaknesses. Of course, that opens up a question which is hotly debated -- is the strategy of your opponent a "rule" of the game which should be included when doing the analysis? If so, then game theory always give the best strategy, but the game is always different. Useless perfection unless one has a great feel for the whole thing -- then it can lead to nice wins at the tables :)
--Pete
My (extremely limited) understanding of game theory suggests that people often don't behave in what would seem to be the 'most logical' way when presented with a choice or decision, and especially not when more than one person is involved.
There are a few problems involved here. First (and it's been a long time, so anyone willing to refresh my memory is more than welcome) only zero sum two "person" games are proven to have a solution. If more than two parties are involved, or if the game is not zero sum (value can be created or destroyed) then there might be a solution and there might not.
Second, using a game theory strategy (where one exists) guarantees the best result (which might be negative) against a player also playing optimally. But when the very meaning of the concept of "best result" is defined differently by the two "players" (i.e, when one player is the "capitalistic West" and the other is the "Soviet Block"), it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to even define the games' goals. Which makes the calculation of a strategy rather tough.
Furthermore, even in a simple, zero sum, two-player game (say heads up poker) the "ideal" (as defined by game theory) strategy might not be the best. Against the same opponent, a player playing according to game theory would not do as well as a player who modified his strategy in accordance with the opponents weaknesses. Of course, that opens up a question which is hotly debated -- is the strategy of your opponent a "rule" of the game which should be included when doing the analysis? If so, then game theory always give the best strategy, but the game is always different. Useless perfection unless one has a great feel for the whole thing -- then it can lead to nice wins at the tables :)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
