2 ms·

Don't even understand how this is an article, they flat out have a disclaimer: > Auto-hold strategies vary by game, based on the particular features of a game a

by lnanek2 12y ago

Don't even understand how this is an article, they flat out have a disclaimer: > Auto-hold strategies vary by game, based on the particular features of a game and do not necessarily result in theoretical payouts On smart phone games auto is often not the best strategy, just the easiest (Summoner's War with 30 million downloads, I'm looking at you). Sounds like the guy was just ignorant and thought auto was something it was specifically declaimed not to be. If it was labeled "Best" I might feel something for him.

mwexler 12y ago
... Or the guy was just like so many average humans and assumed that the machine was doing something more than randomly picking cards to hold. If the machine said it was auto-picking the worst cards, we'd all be mad. If the machine said it was randomly picking the cards, we'd all be surprised: why even do that? Who does it help? Therefore, from an implicatures pov, the only reason for the machine to pick cards (or "suggest" cards) is to recommend a good hand. Since the computer can often pick the best hand, why would we not assume that it's doing so, to give us mere humans "a fighting chance", so to speak? Why should we assume that it's not picking the computably best cards to hold, other than our belief that the machine "cheats"? And that's what the article examines. I don't think it's ignorance on our gambler's part; I think it's the standard "Black Hat UI" issue mentioned on HN so often: We assume that sw does somethign to maximize utility for the user, based on the design or experience, when it's instead doing something to maximize profit for some other entity. Yes, it's a gambling machine; we all understand that it's designed to take our money. But offering a feature as part of the experience that appears to help when it doesn't (or to a lesser degree than would be expected via presentation), would be deemed misleading by any reasonable person, small print and disclaimers aside.

by lnanek2 12y ago

mwexler 12y ago

... Or the guy was just like so many average humans and assumed that the machine was doing something more than randomly picking cards to hold. If the machine said it was auto-picking the worst cards, we'd all be mad. If the machine said it was randomly picking the cards, we'd all be surprised: why even do that? Who does it help? Therefore, from an implicatures pov, the only reason for the machine to pick cards (or "suggest" cards) is to recommend a good hand. Since the computer can often pick the best hand, why would we not assume that it's doing so, to give us mere humans "a fighting chance", so to speak? Why should we assume that it's not picking the computably best cards to hold, other than our belief that the machine "cheats"? And that's what the article examines. I don't think it's ignorance on our gambler's part; I think it's the standard "Black Hat UI" issue mentioned on HN so often: We assume that sw does somethign to maximize utility for the user, based on the design or experience, when it's instead doing something to maximize profit for some other entity. Yes, it's a gambling machine; we all understand that it's designed to take our money. But offering a feature as part of the experience that appears to help when it doesn't (or to a lesser degree than would be expected via presentation), would be deemed misleading by any reasonable person, small print and disclaimers aside.