= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hamnox comments on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (200)
Unfortunately, this would be easy to abuse online. Create a sockpuppet account, make a stupid prediction, and then quickly fix the prediction using your real account. This is equivalent to moving bits from one account to the other.
At CFAR workshop all participants were real people. But they still missed an existing opportunity to abuse the system: there were rewards for winning, but no punishment for losing. So two people could agree to transfer a lot of bits from one to another, and split the price afterwards.
Maybe a system more difficult to abuse can be designed, but a direct copy of algorithm used at CFAR isn't it.
You're right. Gaming the system is feasible, though I believe it is very low-value.
What exactly would the point of gaming a prediction thread be? The only point-keeping would be informal, so if you're making a bunch of points off of idiotic puppets bets it's still visible as because you were up against an idiotic bet. It'd be like lying on the group diary, almost.
Do note, there was actually a HUGE punishment for losing. You could get into the negative pretty easily by being stupidly overconfident. The scoring was 100 × log2(Your probability of outcome/Previous Bet probability of outcome).. For example: if you updated a 50% house bet to 99% being correct would give you 98.55 "bits", while being wrong would give you -564.39
Only to the extent that you care about points, whereas the winner was given a tangible prize (in my case, a book).
Actually, I'm now remembering that that isn't entirely true: there was a prize for the person with most points, but also a prize that was assigned randomly, weighted according to ((player points) - (least number of points of any player) + 1), or something. So the more you lose by, the less chance you have of winning that prize. But if you're near the back anyway, your chance of winning is so small that this is a very small punishment.
(I think we might have had someone who was convinced to get many negative points, to reduce the effective spread among everyone else. Or I might be making that up.)
Ah, I do not believe there was such a prize system at my minicamp.