= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com - 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 (154)
I wish we could do this but playing without real money wouldn't work for improving rationality and I don't think it would even work for testing rationality in a meaningful way.
Also, I think this sets a good precedent. People who will bet on cards are far more likely to bet on their beliefs in general, which is a sign that they actually have beliefs as opposed to just "things they would like to be true". Not taking +EV bets that represent negligible portions of your net-worth is epistemically irrational so it seems like a rationalist community should be encouraging betting when it is done at reasonable stakes as a way to train or test beliefs.
After some amount of practice, playing poker should be +EV. Betting money while still a poker noob, however, is certainly -EV. I'd be more willing to bet money if I had some indication, preferrably in the form of an Elo rating, that I can expect to come out ahead.
After we cover some introductory material on our site, I plan to recommend people test out play money games after signing up to learn how the software works and get a feel for the game, then take these two tests. I'll try and get some scores from winning, marginal, and losing players so I can make a recommendation for a cut-off on whether to play or keep studying first.