Critisim on Game theory
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-triumph-and-failure-of-john-nashs-game-theory
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830040107
We learned a lot about the game theory, and many of the following algorithms are based on game theory. When I try to apply them to my poker games, it does not work that well. We have GTO in poker that is basically the subgame nash equilibrium for the game, but when I follow it, I still loss money in long run (based on my experience for long term). Therefore, I try to find why Game theory do not work, and above are some great resources.
I will use a lot of examples we discussed in class to illustrate the main idea, which is the link between my blog and the course Info2040. Determining, limiting, isolating, or accounting for each set of factors and variables that affect strategy and result is a persistent challenge in game theory modeling. There will always be some X-factor that cannot be eliminated. No plan, for instance, can anticipate the conduct of a negotiator who is experiencing a religious revelation. The intellectual foundation of game theory. Additionally, maximization of one’s personal gain is considered to be rationality in conventional economic theories. You will therefore always act to benefit yourself as much as possible in any circumstance, regardless of how it impacts other people. It’s interesting to note that research has shown that kindergarten pupils are more likely to fully accept the economic theory of a self-serving, payoff-maximizing agent, but by the fourth grade, their conduct starts to favor cooperative solutions. According to game theory, cooperation among players is always the best course of action, at least when taking part in a game-theory experiment (even if it means losing the game). Suppose the following: You take part in what is described as a one-shot game. You must take advantage of the other player if you want to win this game. You discover that this game is actually one of two in a series after doing so and succeeding. The roles have now been switched. The real goal of the study is to determine Player 2’s behavior after Player 1 makes a mistake in the first game. Your initial game’s self-maximizing, logical decision is now illogical when viewed outside of the confines of a one-shot game. Test administrators frequently deceive test takers in order to achieve the best results: complete knowledge of players’ tactical decisions in various game scenarios. Any player’s strategy within the game will be overruled by the test-strategy giver’s of hiding the true nature of the game. The test taker is given the greatest information possible (which offers the most utility within a larger framework of test-giving). This knowledge is obtained at the cost of the player, who divulges to a fellow citizen his or her desire to deviate from the wider social order. We must believe that agents always use dominating methods, as the prisoner’s dilemma demonstrates. Assuming the test-giver is manipulating the game to force players to provide information is thus the optimal approach for a game theory experiment. Therefore, in a game, cooperation is always preferred, even if it results in defeat. Even the poorest result from this method is still a desirable result. In essence, if you preserve your reputation across a much larger series of life circumstances, losing an experimental game after being misled isn’t such a loss. If you might have to share an elevator with a player after the game, is it reasonable to take advantage of them under the hypothetical (and potentially deceptive) parameters of the game?
I find it really interesting to see some other opinions about game theory other than the class info2040 point of view, or the mainstream of the science field point of view. I enjoy the course a lot, and enjoy the process of reading and writing something related to the course material with my own idea.