= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jmmcd comments on Mixed strategy Nash equilibrium - 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 (46)
I think you're making a distinction between one-shot and iterated games. This is a different distinction than that between mixed and non-mixed strategies. You can have a mixed strategy equilibrium in a one-shot game, as in both the swords-n-armour example and the attack/defend East/West example.
So: if the game is one-shot (and you can see the current distribution), the right decision depends only on the current distribution, as you said.
The question was
My point was that you can't say mixed strategy to the first question, although it is a valid answer to the second part.
You could say yellow/yellow, because that was the value selected by my RNG using the mixed strategy distribution Z.
But yes I was being imprecise with my language, I'm a little rusty. I'll fix once I have had some sleep.