Better fit in ~tv I think. Money was pretty cool. I watched it when it was on Nebula, it's what sold me on getting on it in fact. I think it's a good format if Tom were to do it again. I've also...
Money was pretty cool. I watched it when it was on Nebula, it's what sold me on getting on it in fact. I think it's a good format if Tom were to do it again.
I've also been watching a lot of the Technical Difficulties attempted game shows. I really like the "Two of these people are lying" series. They also came up with "Burn the candle at both ends: Pick a subject to draw. Someone draws the left side, someone else draws the right side, points if the drawings reasonably match up." -- both concepts are something I want to try with my board game group.
This was a fun game. They didn't do the meta-strategizing that would have optimized their wins though. They could have at the start said: "Ok, there is a total pot of 10k. Let's split that evenly...
This was a fun game. They didn't do the meta-strategizing that would have optimized their wins though. They could have at the start said: "Ok, there is a total pot of 10k. Let's split that evenly among us and optimize for total pot size." If they'd done that they would have won an additional fee hundred dollars each. Of course this would require some trust, but since it is the optimal outcome it ought to be the least likely for people screwing eachother over.
After playing Virtue's Last Reward I literally can never believe this strategy anymore haha. On a more serious note, this strategy usually fails despite everyone agreeing it is optimal because all...
since it is the optimal outcome it ought to be the least likely for people screwing eachother over.
After playing Virtue's Last Reward I literally can never believe this strategy anymore haha.
On a more serious note, this strategy usually fails despite everyone agreeing it is optimal because all it takes is a single person to screw everyone over, and this may happen completely unintentionally. If a single person begins to doubt the others and acts in self-preservation, it's all down the drain, even though no one was trying to be evil.
In my opinion, to successfully pull this off the level of mutual trust must be really high from the get go (so preferably you're all very good friends), and ideally there must be negative consequences for betraying the rest of the group. If that can't be assured, you're usually better off fighting for yourself because there is a very high likelihood of someone trying to act in self-preservation, with ill intent or otherwise, and then screwing you over as well.
Sadly our internal psychology doesn't always work in optimal ways.
True, might not be a super easy thing to coordinate. The basic idea is to realize that the game is not really player Vs player, it is a game of the players Vs the house. If you frame the game in...
True, might not be a super easy thing to coordinate. The basic idea is to realize that the game is not really player Vs player, it is a game of the players Vs the house. If you frame the game in that way it is probably easier to get cooperation from a pure psychological perspective. Everyone will feel like they are clever and cheating without consequences.
There are also corrective strategies one can use in these types of games, e.g. variations on tit for tat that can cope with misstakes/noise. However, those strategies break down in finite iteration games where the number of iterations are known. In this case for the video I think there is a really strong incentive to not screw everyone over; this being public on the internet on a well known channel and all.
Better fit in ~tv I think.
Money was pretty cool. I watched it when it was on Nebula, it's what sold me on getting on it in fact. I think it's a good format if Tom were to do it again.
I've also been watching a lot of the Technical Difficulties attempted game shows. I really like the "Two of these people are lying" series. They also came up with "Burn the candle at both ends: Pick a subject to draw. Someone draws the left side, someone else draws the right side, points if the drawings reasonably match up." -- both concepts are something I want to try with my board game group.
This is way better than I expected it to be. Some nice plays.
This was a fun game. They didn't do the meta-strategizing that would have optimized their wins though. They could have at the start said: "Ok, there is a total pot of 10k. Let's split that evenly among us and optimize for total pot size." If they'd done that they would have won an additional fee hundred dollars each. Of course this would require some trust, but since it is the optimal outcome it ought to be the least likely for people screwing eachother over.
After playing Virtue's Last Reward I literally can never believe this strategy anymore haha.
On a more serious note, this strategy usually fails despite everyone agreeing it is optimal because all it takes is a single person to screw everyone over, and this may happen completely unintentionally. If a single person begins to doubt the others and acts in self-preservation, it's all down the drain, even though no one was trying to be evil.
In my opinion, to successfully pull this off the level of mutual trust must be really high from the get go (so preferably you're all very good friends), and ideally there must be negative consequences for betraying the rest of the group. If that can't be assured, you're usually better off fighting for yourself because there is a very high likelihood of someone trying to act in self-preservation, with ill intent or otherwise, and then screwing you over as well.
Sadly our internal psychology doesn't always work in optimal ways.
True, might not be a super easy thing to coordinate. The basic idea is to realize that the game is not really player Vs player, it is a game of the players Vs the house. If you frame the game in that way it is probably easier to get cooperation from a pure psychological perspective. Everyone will feel like they are clever and cheating without consequences.
There are also corrective strategies one can use in these types of games, e.g. variations on tit for tat that can cope with misstakes/noise. However, those strategies break down in finite iteration games where the number of iterations are known. In this case for the video I think there is a really strong incentive to not screw everyone over; this being public on the internet on a well known channel and all.
It was a pretty good show but I was hoping for more of a pirate riddle scenario. Perhaps with ways that two people could work together.