/lit/ - Literature

>>14066625
You aren't a lawyer.

>>14066650
Thanks for the bump

>>14066625
Nigga just cop it on Youtube, mans got bare videos init.

>>14066680
I want a book

>>14066718
I don't think Mr. Patrick has written a book, so you'll be looking for quite a while.

>>14067158
thanks for the bump

>>14066680
Shut up nigger.

>>14067198
Brainlets will never understand. There are books on GT, there are hardly any good books on GT. Read Nash.
GT is not like Hemmingway, not something that you read so you can brag about how smart you are. GT is simple but requires actual work to apply. Google dominated strategies and Nash equilibrium, it will be better than meme books.
But you won't do that. You will also never try to prove a formula or calculate a real life scenario, be it on paper, in a calculator or using a programming language.

>>14066625
Dude I'm pretty sure you don't need to read books to understand a YouTube channel, a basic knowledge of videogames will do

The game is rock paper scisors.
What is the Nash equilibrium strategy for this game. A strategy that can not be exploited in the long term. You should be able to solve this.

>>14067217
I am not looking to brag, I won't tell anybody I am reading about it. I just want to understand it's importance in economics.
>>14067226
I said game theory, not video game theory you dummy
>>14067244
Think of me as a total ignorant on GT or Nash's theories.
Is it possible to understand it in 500 pages or do I need to study mathematics to know about it?

>>14067272
>I just want to understand it's importance in economics.

Welll it's important. All the books that I read on game theory were shit though.
When you first start you should not look for game theory books aplied to economics, you should look at mathematical books explaining the very concept.
After you understood the principle you can apply it to anything, but that is just math + modeling.

I know my post was a bit rude, I can not recommend a book because all the books I read were shit, but what do you think about my question? What is the GTO strategy for rock paper scissors?

t. CS master with focus on poker AI

>>14067317
I've been reading articles about it in Layman's terms and I understand how it can have influence on human behavior and decisions. I would like to go further than that. I know that for some sciences, one book will give you nothing. If that is the case, give me all the articles or books I could read about it for someone who isn't on STEM. I have time.
About your question, I guess the equilibrium lays on having 2 people playing for a 3 choice game. That 1/3 that's outside of the players always remain the same, making it an unbiased game where you can't develop any strategy since it's based on a 33% chance of probabilities to lose it, all the time (please consider I know almost nothing about math).

>>14067211
have sex

>>14067396
>About your question, I guess the equilibrium lays on having 2 people playing for a 3 choice game. That 1/3 that's outside of the players always remain the same, making it an unbiased game where you can't develop any strategy since it's based on a 33% chance of probabilities to lose it, all the time (please consider I know almost nothing about math).

That kind of goes in the right direction. But it's not only about the game, the playersstill can make a decision.
Imagine you have a random number generator and you can express your strategy in probabilities. What is better, 100% rock or 100% paper?
Or maybe 50% paper, 50% rock, 0% scissors?

What is the strategy that the opponent can never exploit in the long term?

>>14066625
BUT HEY, THAT'S JUST A THEORY

>>14067432
What is better, 100% rock or 100% paper?
Or maybe 50% paper, 50% rock, 0% scissors?
For me, all of those? What wouldn't be good is 33% paper, 33% rock or 33% scissors.
>What is the strategy that the opponent can never exploit in the long term?
The choice

>>14067522
>What wouldn't be good is 33% paper, 33% rock or 33% scissors.

This is actually the Nash equilibrium for the game.
A Nash equilibrium is defined as the strategy with the maximum defensive value. In other words a strategy that can never be defeated. It might or might not win, but it will never lose and you can prove that.

In rock-paper-scisors the Nash equilibrium will not win in the long term but it will also never lose.

Let's ot go for a mathematical proof, let's look at a few examples:

Opponent chooses 100% paper, 0% scissors, 0% rock
He will win 50% against rock, lose 50% against scissors.
His expected value is 0.
You can think of other scenarios, but that will only mean we will have to use our calculators.
The opponent's expected value will always be 0.
Please don't trust me, I have already spilled the beans, choosing at 33% in rock paper scisors is s toy example in game theory. Noone will dispute this, but please don't trust me check at least Wikipedia.

A Nash equilibrium is not axploitation. Which is a different approach but I would say is not strictly game theory.
You can make decisions, for example based on statistical data, that will give you an edge over the opponent. If you know yur opponent chooses paper too often, you will choose scissors.
But what if your data is incomplete? What if he is in a different mood today? The Nash equilibrium strategy of 33% will guarantee you will never lose and yes I mean GUARANTEE.

Now you could ask, why should I use this strategy, only so I will never lose? I want to win!
In informal terms, rock paper scissors is a very simple game where the opponent can not use a dominated (very bad) strategy. In other games, like poker, you will never lose with a Nash eq strategy but you will likely also win.

But my main point here is, a Nash eq is at first not about winning, it's about a strategy where you can never lose, and you can prove that with mathematical rigour.

I just found most books on game theory too soft, you don't need math, but you need a bit of logic. If you don't understand why 33% in rock paper scisors is the optimal strategy, you will never understand game theory. You have to go at least that deep into logic/math.

Maybe I sound harsh, but I genuinely wanted to help. I was a semi pro poker player for a while and even simple examples were hard for me at first. Just don't choose a soft book.

Game Theory 101 is on youtube.

>>14067272
Game theory is not just important in economics, it's a fundamental aspect of sociology and biology and any field in which complex, adaptive systems with feedback exist.

>>14067606
I guess I was thinking it backwards. I did studied logic, but the philosophy branch, not the math. I get your example.
>>14067640
Thanks
>>14067667
That's why I want to read more about it than a wikipedia page and an article done by a student.