jimmy comments on The Sin of Underconfidence - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 April 2009 06:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (176)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jimmy 21 April 2009 06:45:03AM 1 point [-]

You're confusing meta strategies and strategies. The best meta strategy might be implementing strategies that do not have the highest chance of succeeding, simply because you can use the information you gain to choose the actual best strategy when it matters.

Consider the case where you're trying to roll a die many times and get the most green sides coming up, and you can choose between a die that has 3 green sides, and one that probably (p = 0.9) has 2 green sides, but might (p = 0.1) have 4 green sides. If the game lasts 1 roll, you chose the first die. If the game lasts many many rolls, you chose the other die until you're convinced that it only has 2 green sides- even though this is expected to lose in the short term.

Comment author: Mulciber 21 April 2009 10:06:51PM 0 points [-]

Both those courses of action with dice sound like strategies to me, not meta strategies. Could you give another example of something you'd consider a meta strategy?

I think there's a larger point lurking here, which is that a good strategy should, in general, provide for gathering information so it can adapt. Do you agree?

Comment deleted 21 April 2009 10:37:47PM *  [-]
Comment author: Mulciber 21 April 2009 11:47:27PM *  0 points [-]

That does indeed help. Thank you.

So really, a meta strategy would be something like choosing your deck for a Magic tournament based on what types of decks you expect your opponents to use. While the non-meta strategy would be your efforts to win within a game once it's started.

Comment author: MrHen 22 April 2009 12:05:26AM 0 points [-]

Ah, crap. Was that my comment? Sorry. I keep deleting comments when it looks like no one has responded.

But, yeah, Magic has a rather intense meta-game. The reason I deleted my comment was because I realized I had no idea where the meta-strategy was in the dice example so I assumed I missed something. I could be chasing down the wrong definition.

Comment author: orthonormal 22 April 2009 04:58:43AM *  6 points [-]

Ah, crap. Was that my comment? Sorry. I keep deleting comments when it looks like no one has responded.

...and that's why you really shouldn't delete a comment unless you think it's doing great harm. You may be worrying a bit too much about what others here think about every comment you make, when it's in fact somewhat random whether anyone replies to a given comment.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 April 2009 05:25:30AM 0 points [-]

Also, I believe that deleting a comment does not dissipate any negative karma that it has already earned you.

Comment author: MrHen 22 April 2009 01:34:47PM *  1 point [-]

Also, I believe that deleting a comment does not dissipate any negative karma that it has already earned you.

This is correct.

I do not delete to avoid the karma hit, I delete to drop the number of comments in a thread. If two other people say the same thing there was no reason for me to say it.

In this case, I realized immediately after I posted the comment that I probably had not done justice to the entire thread, so I deleted it. I find the clutter annoying and if I can voluntarily take my comment out of the path I am happy to do so.

Unfortunately, this apparently does not work because two people have responded before I could delete a comment. So, deleting does not work well and now I know. Next strategy to try, just editing with a sentence saying "Ignore me"? What is the community consensus on this subject? Just leave the comment alone?

It would be neat if there was a way to just hit my own comment with -4 and get it off of people's radar.