Question on game theory...

[jackaaron]

Let’s say you have the most game theory knowledge in the world….

Otherwise, you are a game theory guru/master/Ninja, whatever. But, you’re playing in a game where people have no idea what game theory is.

Would you actually have LESS of an edge (SOLELY BASED on your game theory knowledge, and nothing else) than if you were in a game where all the participants have studied game theory but they don’t fully understand it, and are unable to recall or remember concepts as quickly and often as you can?

Maybe irrelevant question, but I just wonder nonetheless.
Thanks!

[SplawnDarts]

Not to be an ass, but I don't think this question is sufficiently well stated to have an answer. For starters, I think you're under the mistaken assumption that game theory is an applied discipline with respect to poker. Under most circumstances that's not the case.

[Artsemis]

I'd say if they have any recollection of past actions it still matters, otherwise you should just choose the most direct +EV play in any given situation.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be an ass, but I don't think this question is sufficiently well stated to have an answer. For starters, I think you're under the mistaken assumption that game theory is an applied discipline with respect to poker. Under most circumstances that's not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries, you can't be more of an ass than you already are. I do agree with you though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I realize it probably wasn't worded properly, especially for an ass. A better way to ask was, "Is knowledge of game theory helpful in a game that is populated mostly by donkies?"

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to be an ass, but I don't think this question is sufficiently well stated to have an answer. For starters, I think you're under the mistaken assumption that game theory is an applied discipline with respect to poker. Under most circumstances that's not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries, you can't be more of an ass than you already are. I do agree with you though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I realize it probably wasn't worded properly, especially for an ass. A better way to ask was, "Is knowledge of game theory helpful in a game that is populated mostly by donkies?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic answer to that is no, since you want to be playing strategies that exploit their weaknesses rather than equilibrium strategies that eliminate yours (which the donks are too clueless to exploit). Game theory gives you a method for finding that equilibrium strategy (although not for poker) and as such is a method of playing defense, not offense.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
Game theory gives you a method for finding that equilibrium strategy (although not for poker) and as such is a method of playing defense, not offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cue Jared... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[mvdgaag]

Game theory seeks an optimal stategy, not the best srategy. I'm not very much into game theory, although I understand most bluffing and calling with game theory maths. What I understand is that most game theoretical strategies try to make your opponents choice of strategy irrelevant. For exmaple: for him calling would become precicely as improfitable as folding because of the odds you choose to give. Therefore it does not matter what strategy your opponent has and as a result his knowledge of game theory does not matter as well.

GL

[AaronBrown]

Game theory is the study of decision-making under uncertainty, where the uncertainty is modeled as the actions of a rational entity rather than randomness. If you are deciding whether to take an umbrella to work, you care about the probability of rain, which is the same whether you carry the umbrella or not. So you use probability theory. But if you didn't take the umbrella and are negotiating with a street vendor over the price of an umbrella, any offer you make or other action you take might change the price he is willing to accept. You don't model this game with probability theory, you might try game theory. For example, you might wait until no one else is around to make a very low offer, on the theory that he's willing to take a low price for his umbrellas (they're very cheap ones and he may not be able to get rid of them at all once the rain stops) but not in front of other potential customers.

If the other players in your game play randomly, or follow rules that do not depend on your strategy, then game theory is not helpful. They are not rational actors in the game theory sense. Or, they may be rational, but you do not know their true objectives or beliefs, so you can't model a game theory solution. Their play looks random or irrational to you. Game theory won't hurt you, because you won't be able to apply it. If you try to apply it under mistaken assumptions, it could hurt you. There is a technical term for this error, applying game theory to random or otherwise inappropriate uncertainties. It's "superstition."

But just because people haven't taken courses in game theory and wouldn't know a Nash equilibrium from a prisoner's dilemma, doesn't mean they don't have objectives, beliefs about your actions and rational plans for maximizing their satisfaction. If you can figure those things out from their points of view, you can apply game theory for profit.

[mvdgaag]

Nice post Aaron. One comment: You can use game theory for bluffing. You get the same EV if your opponent folds or calls by giving him the same odds against your bluffing as the pot odds. This is a game theoretical approach and it does not matter if your opponent makes rational or random decisions! Therefore you can use game theory to find an optimal strategy against random uncertainties. But this is still an optimal game theoretical strategy that also optimises against random uncertainties and is not superstition at all, because it can turn -EV situations into +EV situations by introducing the concept of bluffing. To assure your rational opponent cannot do anything to maximise his winnings (or minimise losses) against this strategy you choose to nullify the difference in EV between his choices. In theory you allways win in the long run, if he always calls, folds or mixes it up. Sklansky's "the theory of poker" discusses this way of using game theory to determine an optimal bluffing strategy. Of course this theory should only be applied if you are facing better opponents. Also you could use a better than optimal strategy if you could predict your opponents tendencies (never bluff an opponent that never folds).

Maarten

[ratel]

Actually, speaking as a former assistant research analyst at the RAND Corporation who studied game theory with Thomas Schelling while working on my PhD, I'd chose to play the latter. Why?

They know enough to realize they should be intimidated. LOL