= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Xachariah comments on Game Theory As A Dark Art - 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 (100)
And if there were two homo-economicii there, they would have each given MBlume infinity dollars until one of them ran out of cash.
There's a reason humans evolved not to fall into those traps.
Edit: Whoops, brain farted that one. Homo economucii would play a mixed strategy, with a NE of $0 dollars expected gain. Cooperating humans play a strategy where they win $19 every time.
What? No they wouldn't. Giving MBlume infinity dollars is not a Nash equilibrium.
It isn't? Darn =(
I don't see how any one player can do better in a world where MBlume gets infinity dollars.
Even after inflation?
It's not CDT-rational to bid one dollar for 20 dollars if there is a high probability that others will be bidding as well, because you are unlikely to actually make that $19 profit. You are likely to actually get $0 for your $1. And if you know in advance that you would make the decision to pour more money in when you are being outbid, then the expected utility of bidding $1 is even lower, because you will be paying even more for nothing.
Indeed I consider that the winning move would be to blackmail the person starting the auction for a small percentage of his winnings, (else you expain to everyone present why he'll get those winnings).
Yes, it's just almost nothing to do with this kind of consideration.