
Math General Math Forum  For general math related discussion and news 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
December 20th, 2017, 08:43 AM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Apr 2015 From: England Posts: 16 Thanks: 0  I've worked out how to beat Nash's Equilibrium strategies without cooperation...
... It is very simple logic, but I think it is new. (It only works in certain games). I cant find anybody who understands it. Can you guys?? I'm a poker player, and in Poker we use either equilibrium strategies or something called exploitative strategies. It's well known that exploitative strategies will take chips from imperfect players quicker than N.E. And so, if we are in a tournament with a mixed field of players, an exploitative player will take chips from the imperfect players faster than the N.E player will. I will exploit the weaker players, take their chips, and then when I face the N.E. player I will have more chips and so will hold the advantage. Instead of cooperating with the other players to beat N.E. you can USE the other players to beat it. 
December 20th, 2017, 08:23 PM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 564 Thanks: 329 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics 
I think there isn't much for me to say here that people didn't already tell you on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/ In short: At present, you clearly do not understand what a Nash equilibrium is whatsoever. If you want to learn math, then spend time reading math. 
December 20th, 2017, 08:40 PM  #3 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 13,988 Thanks: 995 
This guy is a nut case...see his previous posts...

December 21st, 2017, 08:00 AM  #4 
Newbie Joined: Apr 2015 From: England Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 
Lol I just looked at some of my older posts on here. All my curiosities find their way to threads like these... But anyway... On Reddit they seem to say that this is clearly cooperative. Perhaps this falls under implicit cooperation in repeated games??? To confirm we are on the same page... There is only one N.E. solution to Holdem Poker? If someone were to be using this solution then I would not be able to deviate from an N.E. strategy with any benefit to myself? Even if a weaker player were involved. I still would not be able to deviate without any cooperation from anyone else for any kind of gain to myself? Now... If we are in a repeated game, and the N.E player was not involved in this particular 'hand', we ourselves can divert from N.E. to take advantage of the weaker player. When we then come to face the N.E. player. We will hold the advantage. If my terminology is somehow wrong do tell me where? It seems to me like mathematicians dont have a clue how to use their formulas in real life situations. 
December 21st, 2017, 09:40 AM  #5 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,600 Thanks: 2588 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
I would be very surprised if poker had a (known) equilibrium strategy that wasn't in part a random choice. But I don't think you actually understand what an equilibrium strategy is. Nor do I think you know what you are actually doing: namely you take more risks earlier on with a view to having a stronger position from which to play conservatively. I'm sure you don't have enough solid data on which to base any claim that your approach is better in the long run. I'm also sure that any equilibrium strategy will assume perfect players (no "tells" and no errors in probabilistic calculations) who simply don't exist. It's certainly very clear that you don't understand the process of mathematical modelling that you are attacking. 

Tags 
beat, cooperation, equilibrium, game theory, nash, strategies, worked 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
This has me beat...  weirddave  Math  6  December 19th, 2017 09:23 AM 
How to Always Beat the Stock Market (not a joke)  AplanisTophet  Economics  26  December 15th, 2015 06:05 PM 
Nash Equilibrium  Repunit  Complex Analysis  0  December 1st, 2014 04:04 PM 
The circling method and Nash Equilibrium  princessanna57  Economics  2  May 20th, 2010 07:13 PM 
game theory  Nash equilibrium  carlos  Applied Math  0  May 1st, 2009 11:41 AM 