4 ms·

> Although Brown says "imperfect-information games" here, he actually means a specific type of imperfect-information games: the type where the opponent's strate

> Although Brown says "imperfect-information games" here, he actually means a specific type of imperfect-information games: the type where the opponent's strategy is not fixed. We're talking about games where your opponent can change their strategy in order to exploit weaknesses in your strategy. This isn't really the central problem of imperfect information. Consider that in a perfect information game, your opponent will also adjust their strategy to exploit weakness in your strategy. So if it was the central challenge, why does it happen in both? You can rule it out as what he was referring to, because it doesn't discriminate between the two types of games. The central challenge in imperfect information games is you have to play with respect to your information set, not the subgame you are in. So the policies and outcomes of other subgames influences the expected value of the subgame you are in. In perfect information, the only game in your information set is the subgame you are in. So you only have to play with respect to the subgame. That is what makes perfect information different from imperfect information. It discriminates between the two game types.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago
> This isn't really the central problem of imperfect information. Consider that in a perfect information game, your opponent will also adjust their strategy to exploit weakness in your strategy. So if it was the central challenge, why does it happen in both? You can rule it out as what he was referring to, because it doesn't discriminate between the two types of games. The type of issue I was referring does not occur in perfect information games. As a practical example, consider the concept of "balancing your range" in poker. If you play poker without doing that - if you play with a purely exploitative strategy where you are only trying to maximize your EV for each hand - then your strategy will be very easily exploitable by an adaptive opponent. You will frequently end up in river situations where your opponent can deduce whether you have a strong or weak hand, so they can fold to your strong hands and bluff you out of weak hands. In contrast, if you attempt to "balance your range" - that is, consider all the subgames - then you won't end up in these situations as badly. For example, when you make a particular river bet, your opponent might deduce that you have a strong hand 70% of the time and a bluff 30% of the time (as opposed to 100% and 0%). This issue does not exist in perfect information games. Yes, my definition of "adjusting your strategy to your opponent's strategy" was overly broad to define this issue. But if you think about the poker example, where a poker player will might make a decision like "I need to bluff with this part of my range, because I need to support my strong hands [other subgames] by having some bluffs in my range in this situation" - you won't find a corresponding example from perfect information games like chess. This class of problems is unique to imperfect-information games in which an opponent is allowed to adapt their strategy to yours. If you fix the opponent's strategy, the issue disappears. If you turn the game into a perfect-information game, the issue disappears. Both requirements must be present for this issue to exist. I thought that Noam Brown was talking about this issue in chapter 2. He discussed a simple coin toss game where one player took a strategy, and then the other player adapted by taking the optimal (exploitative) strategy against them. Then the other player changed their strategy, and the other player again adapted their strategy. And then he described a balanced (GTO) strategy. Then he said this as a conclusion: > This shows that a player’s optimal strategy in a subgame can depend on the strategies and outcomes in other parts of the game. Thus, one cannot solve a subgame using information about that subgame alone. This is the central challenge of imperfect-information games as opposed to perfect-information games. I thought that this corresponds perfectly to my poker example. If it doesn't, and it means something completely different, ok, sure. I'm not a mathematician. I can't even read the notation that's used in subsequent part of the paper.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  > I thought that this corresponds perfectly to my poker example. If it doesn't, and it means something completely different, ok, sure. I'm not a mathematician. I can't even read the notation that's used in subsequent part of the paper. I think you understood his point very well. I just think you're making a mistake in trying to recast his claim from "imperfect information games" have this property to "this narrow subset of imperfect information games" has this property. Both imperfect games with an opponent and imperfect games without an opponent have the property of needing to play as if you are in multiple subgames, because the definition of the problem is that you don't know which subgame you are in. His claim was that the policy in one subgame could influence the EV of another subgame - and in this problem, it does. I believe you're thinking of the EV of the envelope when you think you are proving this game doesn't have that property via calculation. To see his claim applies to this game consider the case where P(Switch)=1. Being able to calculate the EV of the envelope's contents is a bit different from solving the subgame. Here, we have two subgames E1 and E2. We can know a priori what the expected values of envelope's contents in E1 and E2 are. But if you change your policy in E1, it changes your expected value in E2. If you doubt this, remember the core of the paradox again - choose to always switch and your EV is no longer the EV of the envelopes. Ergo, the EV of the subgame E1 is dependent on the strategies and policies of another subgame, E2.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    > I think you understood his point very well. I just think you're making a mistake in trying to recast his claim from "imperfect information games" have this property to "this narrow subset of imperfect information games" has this property. Both imperfect games with an opponent and imperfect games without an opponent have the property of needing to play as if you are in multiple subgames, because the definition of the problem is that you don't know which subgame you are in. If we take the poker example and we modify it by "locking" our opponent's strategy, then this property is removed. Suddenly the optimal strategy for us no longer includes any GTO-like thinking such as "balancing our range", we should simply maximize our EV for each hand "in a vacuum" without any thought to other subgames. We no longer care how our range looks to our opponent, because they are no longer able to change their strategy. > To see his claim applies to this game consider the case where P(Switch)=1. The policy you chose in one subgame just changed the EV of another subgame. Sorry, but I don't understand this. This sounds to me like we fix the probability of switching to 1, which means that we end up in infinite loop and the outcome can not be computed. I don't understand this premise, nor its implications for the EV of the other subgame. > This is a subtle distinction that I mentioned earlier - the EV of the envelope as in the wikipedia problem isn't the EV of the subgame. So you're not solving the subgame if you figure out the EV of the envelope. The expression you use "EV of the envelope" is ambiguous in this context. I'm not sure if you mean EV relative to the value of the total amount of money in the game, or if you mean EV relative to the value of the firstly-chosen envelope. When we're talking about "solving a game", we're talking about finding the optimal decisions within a game to maximize the expected value from the game as a whole. In the Two Envelope game we have just one decision: switch or not. So we need to find out if EV(switch) > EV(stay), where both EVs are relative to the total amount of money in the game (not relative to the value of firstly-chosen envelope). We have many ways to conclude that both of these actions have expected value zero. We don't have to be able to compute the "EV of the envelope". We only need to know the relative difference between the EV of these 2 actions. There's many ways of computing them, and all of those ways lead us to the conclusion that the EV of both actions is zero. I'm not aware of any "incorrect" way of computing those EVs such that we would get a nonzero result.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

> This isn't really the central problem of imperfect information. Consider that in a perfect information game, your opponent will also adjust their strategy to exploit weakness in your strategy. So if it was the central challenge, why does it happen in both? You can rule it out as what he was referring to, because it doesn't discriminate between the two types of games. The type of issue I was referring does not occur in perfect information games. As a practical example, consider the concept of "balancing your range" in poker. If you play poker without doing that - if you play with a purely exploitative strategy where you are only trying to maximize your EV for each hand - then your strategy will be very easily exploitable by an adaptive opponent. You will frequently end up in river situations where your opponent can deduce whether you have a strong or weak hand, so they can fold to your strong hands and bluff you out of weak hands. In contrast, if you attempt to "balance your range" - that is, consider all the subgames - then you won't end up in these situations as badly. For example, when you make a particular river bet, your opponent might deduce that you have a strong hand 70% of the time and a bluff 30% of the time (as opposed to 100% and 0%). This issue does not exist in perfect information games. Yes, my definition of "adjusting your strategy to your opponent's strategy" was overly broad to define this issue. But if you think about the poker example, where a poker player will might make a decision like "I need to bluff with this part of my range, because I need to support my strong hands [other subgames] by having some bluffs in my range in this situation" - you won't find a corresponding example from perfect information games like chess. This class of problems is unique to imperfect-information games in which an opponent is allowed to adapt their strategy to yours. If you fix the opponent's strategy, the issue disappears. If you turn the game into a perfect-information game, the issue disappears. Both requirements must be present for this issue to exist. I thought that Noam Brown was talking about this issue in chapter 2. He discussed a simple coin toss game where one player took a strategy, and then the other player adapted by taking the optimal (exploitative) strategy against them. Then the other player changed their strategy, and the other player again adapted their strategy. And then he described a balanced (GTO) strategy. Then he said this as a conclusion: > This shows that a player’s optimal strategy in a subgame can depend on the strategies and outcomes in other parts of the game. Thus, one cannot solve a subgame using information about that subgame alone. This is the central challenge of imperfect-information games as opposed to perfect-information games. I thought that this corresponds perfectly to my poker example. If it doesn't, and it means something completely different, ok, sure. I'm not a mathematician. I can't even read the notation that's used in subsequent part of the paper.

JoshCole 4y ago
> I thought that this corresponds perfectly to my poker example. If it doesn't, and it means something completely different, ok, sure. I'm not a mathematician. I can't even read the notation that's used in subsequent part of the paper. I think you understood his point very well. I just think you're making a mistake in trying to recast his claim from "imperfect information games" have this property to "this narrow subset of imperfect information games" has this property. Both imperfect games with an opponent and imperfect games without an opponent have the property of needing to play as if you are in multiple subgames, because the definition of the problem is that you don't know which subgame you are in. His claim was that the policy in one subgame could influence the EV of another subgame - and in this problem, it does. I believe you're thinking of the EV of the envelope when you think you are proving this game doesn't have that property via calculation. To see his claim applies to this game consider the case where P(Switch)=1. Being able to calculate the EV of the envelope's contents is a bit different from solving the subgame. Here, we have two subgames E1 and E2. We can know a priori what the expected values of envelope's contents in E1 and E2 are. But if you change your policy in E1, it changes your expected value in E2. If you doubt this, remember the core of the paradox again - choose to always switch and your EV is no longer the EV of the envelopes. Ergo, the EV of the subgame E1 is dependent on the strategies and policies of another subgame, E2.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > I think you understood his point very well. I just think you're making a mistake in trying to recast his claim from "imperfect information games" have this property to "this narrow subset of imperfect information games" has this property. Both imperfect games with an opponent and imperfect games without an opponent have the property of needing to play as if you are in multiple subgames, because the definition of the problem is that you don't know which subgame you are in. If we take the poker example and we modify it by "locking" our opponent's strategy, then this property is removed. Suddenly the optimal strategy for us no longer includes any GTO-like thinking such as "balancing our range", we should simply maximize our EV for each hand "in a vacuum" without any thought to other subgames. We no longer care how our range looks to our opponent, because they are no longer able to change their strategy. > To see his claim applies to this game consider the case where P(Switch)=1. The policy you chose in one subgame just changed the EV of another subgame. Sorry, but I don't understand this. This sounds to me like we fix the probability of switching to 1, which means that we end up in infinite loop and the outcome can not be computed. I don't understand this premise, nor its implications for the EV of the other subgame. > This is a subtle distinction that I mentioned earlier - the EV of the envelope as in the wikipedia problem isn't the EV of the subgame. So you're not solving the subgame if you figure out the EV of the envelope. The expression you use "EV of the envelope" is ambiguous in this context. I'm not sure if you mean EV relative to the value of the total amount of money in the game, or if you mean EV relative to the value of the firstly-chosen envelope. When we're talking about "solving a game", we're talking about finding the optimal decisions within a game to maximize the expected value from the game as a whole. In the Two Envelope game we have just one decision: switch or not. So we need to find out if EV(switch) > EV(stay), where both EVs are relative to the total amount of money in the game (not relative to the value of firstly-chosen envelope). We have many ways to conclude that both of these actions have expected value zero. We don't have to be able to compute the "EV of the envelope". We only need to know the relative difference between the EV of these 2 actions. There's many ways of computing them, and all of those ways lead us to the conclusion that the EV of both actions is zero. I'm not aware of any "incorrect" way of computing those EVs such that we would get a nonzero result.