3 ms·

Usually predicability vs unpredicatability maps to zero- versus non-zero-sum games. In a purely competitive (zero-sum) game, the equilibrium strategies are ran

Usually predicability vs unpredicatability maps to zero- versus non-zero-sum games. In a purely competitive (zero-sum) game, the equilibrium strategies are randomized ones which deny the opponent any exploitable openings. But you get much more interesting structures in non-zero-sum games, where both players have an incentive to coordinate with each other. War and fighter combat is quintessential zero-sum games, but one would hope that business is win-win.

nostrademons 10y ago
Also depends on 2-player vs. many-player games. A few feints to throw off your opponent can work very well in a 2-player game, where, like the grandparent says, they throw off his OODA loop and can give you additional room to maneuver. In a multiplayer game, though, it's unlikely that all your competitors will be thrown off. One will go for the ideal strategy, irrespective of competitors, and while you & your chosen adversary are duking it out with feints and countermoves, they'll silently come up and pwn you all. I'm reminded of the Microsoft/Netscape battle during the first browser war. The two of them set each other firmly in each others' sights, each trying to predict what the other would do and counter it. In the end, Netscape died and Microsoft became irrelevant, and it was a tiny startup called Google that ended up winning.
- blowski 10y ago
  That depends on the timescale. While Google is winning in 2016, in 2006 we would definitely have been saying Microsoft had won. Nobody knows who will be winning in 2026.
  - orderlyoctopus 10y ago
    The two lessons from this: - Microsoft got so good and prolific at fighting on their terrain, they overspecialized and forgot how to win anywhere else. Once their opponents stopped stepping on their terrain, MS started losing. - There's no such thing as the first browser war or the second browser war or the operating system war, and there's no such thing as winners or losers. There's just a never-ending sequence of skirmishes and battles.
orderlyoctopus 10y ago
Came to say this. A head to head game in the vacuum of a single match, like, say, Chess or Go or Starcraft, is conducive to certain kinds of strategies. You have one opponent and no teammates. Your win is his loss. It's black and white, clearer what you're trying to accomplish. Not all games (or "games", i.e. business) are this simple. There can be multiple players. You may have teammates, or you may need to forge alliances. You may then need to break alliances. There can be multiple degrees of victory or defeat, and multiple paths to victory. Being unpredictable is inherently scary. It's effective in direct conflict because your opponent must account for more possible future situations, diluting his ability to attack you directly, or thwart your true attack directly. Exactly what makes this effective in direct conflict, makes it a liability when seeking alliances. People will not want to cooperate with you if they aren't comfortable in their prediction that cooperation will be beneficial, so they'll only do it if the alternative is worse. Being predictable makes it easy for people to work with you. This opens you up to many opportunities for cooperation you'd otherwise miss. When cooperation is essential to victory, this is immensely powerful and puts a hard limit on how unpredictable you want to be if you'd like to win. And heck, in life and business, maybe relationships with people are most valuable trophy anyway, i.e. https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

nostrademons 10y ago

Also depends on 2-player vs. many-player games. A few feints to throw off your opponent can work very well in a 2-player game, where, like the grandparent says, they throw off his OODA loop and can give you additional room to maneuver. In a multiplayer game, though, it's unlikely that all your competitors will be thrown off. One will go for the ideal strategy, irrespective of competitors, and while you & your chosen adversary are duking it out with feints and countermoves, they'll silently come up and pwn you all. I'm reminded of the Microsoft/Netscape battle during the first browser war. The two of them set each other firmly in each others' sights, each trying to predict what the other would do and counter it. In the end, Netscape died and Microsoft became irrelevant, and it was a tiny startup called Google that ended up winning.

blowski 10y ago
That depends on the timescale. While Google is winning in 2016, in 2006 we would definitely have been saying Microsoft had won. Nobody knows who will be winning in 2026.
- orderlyoctopus 10y ago
  The two lessons from this: - Microsoft got so good and prolific at fighting on their terrain, they overspecialized and forgot how to win anywhere else. Once their opponents stopped stepping on their terrain, MS started losing. - There's no such thing as the first browser war or the second browser war or the operating system war, and there's no such thing as winners or losers. There's just a never-ending sequence of skirmishes and battles.

orderlyoctopus 10y ago

Came to say this. A head to head game in the vacuum of a single match, like, say, Chess or Go or Starcraft, is conducive to certain kinds of strategies. You have one opponent and no teammates. Your win is his loss. It's black and white, clearer what you're trying to accomplish. Not all games (or "games", i.e. business) are this simple. There can be multiple players. You may have teammates, or you may need to forge alliances. You may then need to break alliances. There can be multiple degrees of victory or defeat, and multiple paths to victory. Being unpredictable is inherently scary. It's effective in direct conflict because your opponent must account for more possible future situations, diluting his ability to attack you directly, or thwart your true attack directly. Exactly what makes this effective in direct conflict, makes it a liability when seeking alliances. People will not want to cooperate with you if they aren't comfortable in their prediction that cooperation will be beneficial, so they'll only do it if the alternative is worse. Being predictable makes it easy for people to work with you. This opens you up to many opportunities for cooperation you'd otherwise miss. When cooperation is essential to victory, this is immensely powerful and puts a hard limit on how unpredictable you want to be if you'd like to win. And heck, in life and business, maybe relationships with people are most valuable trophy anyway, i.e. https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ