4 ms·

Is RPS a game of skill?

ferzul 7y ago
the judge allowed that skill might be relevant, but ruled it was an excessive wager
quickthrower2 7y ago
It could be, if you can react to the other persons movement fast enough but appear to not have cheated. Also repeat RPS is definitely a game of skill for humans since humans don't do random, so if you can guess what the other person's bias is you have an advantage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
throw0101a 7y ago
> Is RPS a game of skill? If you do a 2/3, or 3/5, etc, then maybe. Numberphile did an episode on how you're more likely to win by following a particular strategy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc Presumably this works best if the other person is not following the same strategy. The paper that they reference (PDF): * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf
- petemc_ 7y ago
  But then you play someone using similar strategy and you meet the nash equilibrium.
  - ulucs 7y ago
    No pure Nash Equilibria means they won't ever converge, as humans are great at seeing patterns that aren't there and cannot make random choices without outside help.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I just watched that video. Fascinating. Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. I guess it gets a bit like poker where you are trying to appear "loose" then suddenly play tight or whatever. I was wondering how a human can generate random numbers while playing. One way could be if you can hear your heart beat, the number of beats between plays mod 3 would allow you to play randomly enough to throw off your opponents strategy. You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers!
  - cesarb 7y ago
    > Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. Reminds me of Iocaine Powder: https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~egnor/iocaine.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~e...
    - kentonv 7y ago
      My favorite entry in that competition was Fork Bot. The contestants were written in C, you see, and all rounds of play executed in the same process. Obviously there's all kinds of ways you could cheat in this environment but Fork Bot struck me as especially clever. Fork Bot, on its turn, would fork() twice and return a different move in each of the three resulting processes. On its next turn, it would look back to the previous turn and see if it won. If not, it would exit(). So only the process where it won every round would survive... Though, it ran into a problem with one of the other cheaters: "Unfortunately, since all three moves lost to the Psychic Friends Network after the first turn, the program exited and the remainder of that match was declared forfeited." http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 …
- nabla9 7y ago
  20 years ago my friend made simple RPS computer game that always won iterated games against human player. It was relatively simple Bayesian algorithm (not naive Bayes exactly). Humans really suck at producing randomness.
jsymolon 7y ago
A game of skill is a game where the outcome is determined mainly by mental or physical skill, rather than chance. Considering that you can get a robot that will beat RPS 100% of the time, I would consider that a yes. https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29653/ https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29...
cafard 7y ago
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#science http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#scienc...
DennisP 7y ago
If you choose your moves randomly in equal proportion, then you will always win 50% of the time no matter what the other player does (not counting ties). But humans are bad at making truly random choices. If your opponent isn't random, you can exploit what they're actually doing. And if you're exploiting what the opponent is doing, then you're not random anymore and your opponent can exploit what you're doing.
user5994461 7y ago
Of course not. The only edge you can get is if your opponent is making their sign early while their hand is still up. People do that unconsciously. That being said, the game can have an element of strategy if it is played many rounds (hundreds), but humans don't wager beyond one or three rounds. Ain't a fun game if you need paper and keeping track of scores.

the judge allowed that skill might be relevant, but ruled it was an excessive wager

It could be, if you can react to the other persons movement fast enough but appear to not have cheated. Also repeat RPS is definitely a game of skill for humans since humans don't do random, so if you can guess what the other person's bias is you have an advantage.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

throw0101a 7y ago

> Is RPS a game of skill? If you do a 2/3, or 3/5, etc, then maybe. Numberphile did an episode on how you're more likely to win by following a particular strategy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudzYPHuewc Presumably this works best if the other person is not following the same strategy. The paper that they reference (PDF): * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf

petemc_ 7y ago
But then you play someone using similar strategy and you meet the nash equilibrium.
- ulucs 7y ago
  No pure Nash Equilibria means they won't ever converge, as humans are great at seeing patterns that aren't there and cannot make random choices without outside help.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I just watched that video. Fascinating. Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. I guess it gets a bit like poker where you are trying to appear "loose" then suddenly play tight or whatever. I was wondering how a human can generate random numbers while playing. One way could be if you can hear your heart beat, the number of beats between plays mod 3 would allow you to play randomly enough to throw off your opponents strategy. You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers!
- cesarb 7y ago
  > Of course it means if the other person is playing the strategy, then you want to play the strategy to beat that strategy, which is just as simple. But if they realise you are doing that they might switch to the one that beats the one that beats the one. Reminds me of Iocaine Powder: https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~egnor/iocaine.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100131080653/http://ofb.net/~e...
  - kentonv 7y ago
    My favorite entry in that competition was Fork Bot. The contestants were written in C, you see, and all rounds of play executed in the same process. Obviously there's all kinds of ways you could cheat in this environment but Fork Bot struck me as especially clever. Fork Bot, on its turn, would fork() twice and return a different move in each of the three resulting processes. On its next turn, it would look back to the previous turn and see if it won. If not, it would exit(). So only the process where it won every round would survive... Though, it ran into a problem with one of the other cheaters: "Unfortunately, since all three moves lost to the Psychic Friends Network after the first turn, the program exited and the remainder of that match was declared forfeited." http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results2.html
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > You could also memorise a recently generate sequence of random numbers! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 …
nabla9 7y ago
20 years ago my friend made simple RPS computer game that always won iterated games against human player. It was relatively simple Bayesian algorithm (not naive Bayes exactly). Humans really suck at producing randomness.

jsymolon 7y ago

A game of skill is a game where the outcome is determined mainly by mental or physical skill, rather than chance. Considering that you can get a robot that will beat RPS 100% of the time, I would consider that a yes. https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29653/ https://newatlas.com/unbeatable-rock-paper-scissors-robot/29...

cafard 7y ago

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#science http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#scienc...

DennisP 7y ago

If you choose your moves randomly in equal proportion, then you will always win 50% of the time no matter what the other player does (not counting ties). But humans are bad at making truly random choices. If your opponent isn't random, you can exploit what they're actually doing. And if you're exploiting what the opponent is doing, then you're not random anymore and your opponent can exploit what you're doing.

user5994461 7y ago

Of course not. The only edge you can get is if your opponent is making their sign early while their hand is still up. People do that unconsciously. That being said, the game can have an element of strategy if it is played many rounds (hundreds), but humans don't wager beyond one or three rounds. Ain't a fun game if you need paper and keeping track of scores.