[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's definately a quandary... the problem with it all is that they are giving up much less to spite call you than you lose when they call you. So the only retaliation that doesn't simply grant them EV is to spite call them back, in which case you still lose EV, but maybe one day you can have a chat with them and agree to both stop. Very prisioner's dilemma esque.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's certainly got me thinking!

If the NE found by the multiway NE calculator assumes that all players are rationally trying to maximize their own EV then (by definition of NE) there should be no reason for a player to deviate from the computed NE strategy (as any deviation would be -EV).

But as your AK example shows, it's possible for the caller to give up a small amount of their own EV to cost the pusher much more (nearly 10x more in your example), and if your opponent knows that you will "give up $30 to cost him $300" then could the possible profit you will make by forcing him to push less be more than the amount you are giving up?

This seems to fly in the face of what I know about NE though, as there should be no way to deviate profitably?

There must be some flaw in this thinking and/or a flaw in the assumption that each player must rationally try to maximize their own EV only.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]