You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

badger comments on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Coscott 30 September 2013 05:18AM

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

Comments (295)

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

Comment author: badger 03 October 2013 08:54:29PM 1 point [-]

Game theory in these setting is built on subjective probabilities! The standard solution concept in incomplete-information games is even known as Bayes-Nash equilibrium.

The LMSR is stronger strategically than Nash equilibrium, assuming everyone participates only once. In that case, it's a dominant strategy to be honest, rather than just a best response. If people participate multiple times, the Bayes-Nash equilibrium is harder to characterize. See Gao et al (2013)] for the best current description, which roughly says you shouldn't reveal any information until the very last moment. The paper has an overview of the LMSR for anyone interested.

Comment author: cousin_it 03 October 2013 09:09:41PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for the link to Gao et al. It looks like the general problem is still unsolved, would be interesting to figure it out...