My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
December 20th, 2017, 07:43 AM   #1
Joined: Apr 2015
From: England

Posts: 16
Thanks: 0

I've worked out how to beat Nash's Equilibrium strategies without co-operation...

... 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 co-operating with the other players to beat N.E. you can USE the other players to beat it.
Yadoula8 is offline  
December 20th, 2017, 07:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 383
Thanks: 207

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.

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.
SDK is offline  
December 20th, 2017, 07:40 PM   #3
Math Team
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 12,619
Thanks: 845

This guy is a nut case...see his previous posts...
Denis is offline  
December 21st, 2017, 07:00 AM   #4
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 co-operative. Perhaps this falls under implicit co-operation 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 co-operation 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.
Yadoula8 is offline  
December 21st, 2017, 08:40 AM   #5
Math Team
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,313
Thanks: 2447

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.
v8archie is online now  

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

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 08:23 AM
How to Always Beat the Stock Market (not a joke) AplanisTophet Economics 26 December 15th, 2015 05:05 PM
Nash Equilibrium Repunit Complex Analysis 0 December 1st, 2014 03:04 PM
The circling method and Nash Equilibrium princessanna57 Economics 2 May 20th, 2010 06:13 PM
game theory - Nash equilibrium carlos Applied Math 0 May 1st, 2009 10:41 AM

Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.