3 ms·
I don't understand what you were hoping for with your random choices: If you choose randomly, you'll win, lose, and tie each one third of the time, no matter wh
by akjj 16y ago
I don't understand what you were hoping for with your random choices: If you choose randomly, you'll win, lose, and tie each one third of the time, no matter what your opponent's strategy is. Your results are consistent with that prediction.
- Natsu 16y agoI was thinking that there should be a non-random variance to take advantage of if they're trying to exploit human non-randomness. But maybe I committed a statistical fallacy somewhere in that line of reasoning, because it sure didn't win.
- kronusaturn 16y agoYes, you're misunderstanding the statistics a bit. If you're choosing your moves randomly, your win rate will always be 1/3 no matter how non-random the computer's moves are... even if it keeps choosing the same thing over and over.
- lkozma 16y agoThere is, but you are not taking advantage of it as long as you choose randomly. Imagine the other tries to exploit your imagined human non-randomness and plays rock all the time. You play totally random, so on the long term you win/lose/tie roughly same number of times. You would be taking advantage if you played paper all the time.
- Natsu 16y ago> There is, but you are not taking advantage of it as long as you choose randomly. You're right. I was just thinking that 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 was the Nash equilibrium and not really thinking the whole thing through. Once I gave it a little more thought, I came up with the same rock example you gave.
- heyitsnick 16y agoIn most toy games you would be right; playing the GTO/nash equil. solution would naturally benefit from an imbalanced/exploitive style on an opponent. It's only in games like rock-papers-scissors where this isn't the game.