Been watching y'all's lectures lately and I just wanted to add a small point of game theory that seems obvious, but a lot of people underthink it. 12:00 From the perspective of a designer, this is an important part of the second half of game theory- SELF INTEREST can't exist without INCENTIVE. When designing a game, if you're wanting to either utilize or avoid player utilization of game theory, you need to either add or subtract the element of gains from the equation. The reason most people (who aren't strategy gamers) don't find game like RISK or Chess enjoyable is because the only outcome is "victory", with a lot of minor risk-and-reward in between the beginning of the game and that final point. BUT those games are still unquestionably popular, almost ubiquitous. As y'all pointed out in your mechanics lecture, and I'm paraphrasing here, ["if you thought you were behind and then you win the game, you weren't really behind at all"]. Falsified incentive is what keeps you playing games like RISK and Chess. Those little victories that, in the grand scheme of the game, really don't mean anything are integral to keeping the flow of the game heading towards a victory on one side or the other. If chess, for example, was just a game composed of 15 Queens and one King, the pieces would have no intrinsic value to the player. If your opponent takes a piece, it doesn't mean anything to you, because you always have a body to replace it, until they take your King, and then the game is over. So victory (or endgame from design perspective) is the only incentive. You don't want your players to be looking forward to the END of your game, you want them to look forward to PLAYING the game. Therefore, the descending value of the pieces in a strategic sense become your incentive to say... gun for the Queen, or get rid of your opponent's Bishops, because that means a huge loss, strategically, to your opponent, which from a perspective of self-interest (and rationale, in a way), is always going to be satisfying to a player. Anyway, really enjoy your guys' lectures. Just wanted to add a random point for designers who might be scrolling the comments, lol.
@Larry219248 ай бұрын
This is nothing short of extraordinary. I recently stumbled upon similar material, and it was breathtaking. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
@eli0damon8 жыл бұрын
I am a math teacher. I have never seen game theory explained in this way. I think it is brilliant.
@GeekNightsRym8 жыл бұрын
All our lectures are licensed Creative Commons 3.0. You're welcome to steal clips or show segments to anyone or mix them into lesson plans however you like!
@N73B607 жыл бұрын
They are the proof that the Ad Hominem fallacy is false.
@nolanbarger6 жыл бұрын
Brilliant 👍 thank you
@jonaskoelker5 жыл бұрын
I studied a bit of game theory at university. Scott gave an excellent definition of game theory in one of these talks, which I think every game theory professor should use, and which I'll inadvertently paraphrase a little due to poor memory: "game theory is the study of strategic interaction, which means how to make good decisions when the consequences of your decisions depend on the decisions of other people".
@chriscintron35618 жыл бұрын
you guys give the best explanation of game theory. you make it easy and fun.
@jkc2262 Жыл бұрын
😊
@jkc2262 Жыл бұрын
😊😊
@jkc2262 Жыл бұрын
😊
@AndroidOO310 жыл бұрын
These videos are amazing. Where are these guys from? How do they know this?
@toddzelin41039 жыл бұрын
All of this information is readily available in a number of books, in fact some of their examples are ripped directly from text that I've read.
@GeekNightsRym9 жыл бұрын
Todd Zelin As is basically all human knowledge. I'd recommend "Characteristics of Games" by Richard Garfield and some of his colleagues as a good start. Focuses mostly on games, not "game theory," but is widely more practical. We draw many examples from it.
@toddzelin41039 жыл бұрын
Rym DeCoster Aye, I've read it. Been a fan of Mr. Garfield ever since I played MTG. :) Have to disagree with you though, a very large portion of human knowledge is only available in scientific literature.
@RedRussianPedro9 жыл бұрын
Todd Zelin what are you disagreeing with?
@shlamashona51239 жыл бұрын
+Todd Zelin Nobody is saying they're geniuses, they're great at "teaching". Now stop trying to be an edgy bitch.
@BobF51011 ай бұрын
This content is a game-changer. A book with similar insights that I read prompted a profound shift in my life. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
@niknabernik470010 күн бұрын
Top content on this. Video fun to watch
@rameshsurulimuthu73977 жыл бұрын
beautiful and Effective presentation
@jaimegarcia908810 жыл бұрын
Guys, thank for these!
@mjihiloussama95928 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this brilliant and amazing introduction :) go ahead.
@uchenwogwugwu35675 жыл бұрын
This lecture socialises game theory
@Danielle6666611 ай бұрын
here in 2023 - thanks for the explanation :)
@hellswhite38311 жыл бұрын
Thank you soooooooo much for putting this up! You guys are AWESOME!!!
@redsparowe265410 жыл бұрын
Dude, I used to OWN that Superbike book when I was a kid. Nostalgia.
@Thansk_5 ай бұрын
-Figure out the other´s irrationality, watch for players who deviate from perfect play and try to exploit that. -pattern recognition is the key to winning games -As soon as you get good at a game, try to recognize other players who are clearly acting randomly and use that to your advantage
@AlomgirkabirPolash8 жыл бұрын
Very helpful. thanks!
@ralevdotcom5 жыл бұрын
You rock! :) Thank you for sharing this useful game video. I'm playing it for a second time :)
@mattomattata21457 жыл бұрын
Awesome video guys! Thank you :)
@TimmacTR5 жыл бұрын
WHere can we find the slides to this?
@ottodude5557 жыл бұрын
You think nobody noticed the Oglaf shirt you're wearing?
@frage26 Жыл бұрын
lmao the lights at 28:25
@Hikutachama5 жыл бұрын
I wish these were in parts
@soapbxprod8 жыл бұрын
“There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire ... He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path.” -Ludwig Von Mises
@Kuroyami0Fukaikuro7 жыл бұрын
What's the name of that 1812 war game?
@Cadellquimeric6 жыл бұрын
That's cool. Thank you!
@cookiesaregreat6 жыл бұрын
Great talk. Just not one thing "Humans have no ability to predict where something will land" This is actually incorrect. Scientists have determined that in many sports, such as ping pong, tennis, and yes, Baseball, it would be impossible to actually hit the ball UNLESS you predict where it's going to land mere milliseconds after the ball is struck or thrown.
@EugeneBaldovino6 жыл бұрын
Amazing insight. Thanks guys!
@bzsgzs8 жыл бұрын
They are like yin and yang - one with really long hair and the other's hair energy got sucked away.
@Khrene6 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure they do the constrasting colors on purpose
@bboy3216711 жыл бұрын
I use a lot of these concepts on a regular basis cause i play magic the gathering a lot
@midwesternbell7 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU! AWESOME
@aceylaurel9969 ай бұрын
“We, the people” People have rights. Statutes do not say “the people shall”. Stand on your rights.
@GeekNightsRym9 ай бұрын
What?
@confidentinterval36034 жыл бұрын
I took a class called Game Theory last year. I can do the math :)
@kaitengiri7 жыл бұрын
So early on, you say single-player games don't have multiple people and go off on the thing about the AI etc, etc, and that's all fine. But what about the idea that the other person in the game is actually the game developer? To expand on this, Mastermind, the game where you have to figure out the code the other player created within a certain amount of guesses based on limited feedback. Is that not a game? If it is a game, can we not consider that a single player game is perhaps an abstract form of Mastermind?
@GeekNightsRym7 жыл бұрын
Per most readings of Game Theory, games that have a "bank" or other non-player participant can be considered multi-player if you treat that as a player with asymmetric payoff matrices.
@kaitengiri7 жыл бұрын
Interesting. Thank you for the response.
@NinjaFishleg11 жыл бұрын
The El Grande game map looks like Tamriel.
@DeerestAshe7 жыл бұрын
It's not just a theory its a GAME THEORY
@Shaeress11 жыл бұрын
They should comment on the championships...
@jonaskoelker5 жыл бұрын
For anyone who enjoys watching university people wearing their best Sunday ties for the occasion talk about game theory, kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2TSiIx-jtR1rM0 is a very fine 1h lecture analyzing the duel game-one of those goofspiel-like games that are more fun to analyze than play-with only very little math. For the math-savvy it might go a little slow, but that's what 2x chipmunk speed is for :-) The three key lessons are: 1. Dominance arguments: if it's better to do x than y no matter how your opponent then responds, you should do x without worrying about what your opponent will do. 2. Backward induction: if it's the last move of the game you can figure out what's best for you opponent to do; thus you can work out how to play in the second-to-last move. Your opponent can put themselves in your shoes and do the same calculation, so they can decide what to do in the third-to-last-move, etc. 3. How should your analysis change if you don't assume your opponent is playing optimally? It can't change dominance arguments but it can change backward induction arguments. The lecturer teaches an economics-oriented course on game theory, which you may or may not enjoy. It's at kzbin.info/www/bejne/pH6Wo4eLbpdqn9E.
@LOCKEYJ4 жыл бұрын
I have no idea why he decided to throw food in his mouth whilst speaking but I feel threatened
@blakebahner5237 Жыл бұрын
Those criticisms of game theory are common, but are false. Game theory only assumes people act rationally if you are assuming that the "perfect" result is the only thing you should do. Game theory studied properly involves all the possibilities and analyzing how those options influence the game.
@ahappyimago3 жыл бұрын
Please try to get to the point sooner for future talks
@wjeffcunningham5 жыл бұрын
A rock paper scissors AI that beats you 100% of the time. uh huh. Right. 🙄
@williamhaffelder70324 жыл бұрын
They might have good information but neither speaker lets the other finish a thought. It’s an hour of listening to them just interrupt each other.
@brddks76294 жыл бұрын
Hi nerds
@joshuaginoza94467 жыл бұрын
Four years later we know all of the possible combos to Chess and Go.
@mehdimehdikhani58997 жыл бұрын
this is not true.
@Bldyiii6 жыл бұрын
Irony at its finest: theory on Rationality created by a schizophrenia patient.
@gotama5702 жыл бұрын
Let suppose 10 couples are having love? How many babies there will be? Just dont give me an answer nine and a half
@leonardoraele3 жыл бұрын
I watch youtube to not have to read wikipedia and books and you tell me to go read wikipedia and books? Booooo!
@chirilastefanchirila5990 Жыл бұрын
Can you stop speaking on top of other people. What do you think about this game
@theartofcompetition59657 жыл бұрын
humans are not solvable, because of this.. games with high skill cap even at the highest level are not solvable because we are not robots there will always be edges to be had on a psychological level. specifically in a game where randomizers are not allowed. the more human element involved in a game the less "solvable" it becomes even more evident in a game such as poker where you can get reads on your opponent because the inability to control human mannerisms.
@GeekNightsRym7 жыл бұрын
Try again. Chess has an insanely high skill cap, but no human has beaten a modern AI in a decade plus. Modern AIs win some variants of poker reliably now, and they're making rapid progress even on the holy grail of No Limit Texas Holdem. Poker is JUST as solvable as any other game, and there's no difference between a human's "psychological edge" and the same behavior in an AI. Within a few years, you'll see AIs that completely dominate humans in even no limit texas.
@theartofcompetition59657 жыл бұрын
I said humans in the very first word of the post. and you went straight to talking about vs a.i. (btw there is lebotus which has crushed some top poker players using a random balanced strategy) but I am talking about humans vs humans. you said yourself humans are very bad at acting randomly, I will add to that ..humans are not robots and have emotions that drive their actions no matter how hard we try to suppress them. (clearly this is where we disagree because you said "there's no difference between a human's "psychological edge" and the same behavior in an AI") this is just not true. a human has emotions that influence their decisions a.i. does not. and this doesnt even account for micro expressions. also... another thing to account for is stamina and things like this (which btw is the main reason lebotus beat poker pros) I guess if we really want to dig deep into this conversation im going to need you to define "solvable" if you simply mean mathematically solvable well then yes i can jump on board with that. because the human elements i mentioned all refer to the methods of executions, which are not solvable because they are always changing and evolving.
@theartofcompetition59657 жыл бұрын
why do you call texas holdem the holy grail lol i thought you didnt really play it
@HDsharp7 жыл бұрын
A.I dont tilt thats how thay beat humans in poker..
@theartofcompetition59657 жыл бұрын
exactly. also ai doesnt get tired. the human brain gets tired very quick. even before the body. every try meditation? you are supposed to focus on your breathing... sounds simple enough...but your mind begins to wander after only seconds.
@octavioaraujo1674 Жыл бұрын
From a public speaking standpoint, the host on the right needs to stop cutting off his partner on the left. It is a little unprofessional from a public speaking standpoint.
@xranger7078 жыл бұрын
This Biff and Buffy BS goes on and on. WTF are they saying?