= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Prisoner's Dilemma as a Game Theory Laboratory - 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 (47)
So, anyone want to bet on what proportion of strategies will be tit-for-tat? I'm fairly confident it'll be more than half.
(I should be clear, I mean the number of submitted strategies, as duplicate strategies are treated as one strategy.)
In a tournament with a fixed number of rounds and a known random strategy, it would be a bit weird to just use vanilla tit-for-tat, but yeah. It will be a bit boring if all the strategies are nice.
That's a bit disappointing, but so be it.
It did say so in the OP.
Besides, its not such a big deal, the paradox of induction is an interesting problem, if I was very optimistic I might suggest that this could throw some light on it.
If you expect to play against tit-for-tat strategies and a random strategy then you would know that tit-for-tat cannot be expected to win. I'd be surprised if lots of people submit strategies that have almost no chance of winning.