= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Swords and Armor: A Game Theory Thought Experiment - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
Gambit said the only equilibrium was mixed, with 1/5 each of (blue sword, blue armor), (blue sword, green armor), (yellow sword, yellow armor), (green sword, yellow armor), and (green sword, green armor).
With a stylin' bonus of ε points per duel (if a win is 1 point and a loss is −1 points), Gambit says for ε≤1/4 the equilibrium is:
(blue sword, blue armor): 1/5−(4/5)ε
(blue sword, green armor): 1/5−(3/5)ε
(yellow sword, yellow armor): 1/5+(4/5)ε
(green sword, yellow armor): 1/5+(3/5)ε
(green sword, green armor): 1/5
>>2vc//
>Note: this image does not belong to me; I found it on 4chan.
>>2vc//2sbt
>Yellow yellow, because it looks the most awesome and seems like a generally decent combo,
>>2vc//2scc
>Gambit says
>(yellow sword, yellow armor): 1/5+(4/5)ε
File : Gambit_sez_small.jpg
Uh-oh, LessWrong is turning into 4chan! :)