Randomness thread, part two.

[BananaStand]

It still depends though. The value of being first vs. the drawback of the caveat, basically.

I'm having trouble thinking of caveats I wouldn't want instead of a championship, or a title, or whatever.

I'd rather be Lance Armstrong, as played, than any other cyclist, ever.

I'd rather be Tom Brady with a ball-deflation suspension on my resume than any other quarterback, ever.

However, I think I'd rather be.....I don't really follow the sport...name a good baseball player. I'd rather be him than Pete Rose (most hits) or Barry Bonds (most HR's).

[Savy]

It still depends though. The value of being first vs. the drawback of the caveat, basically.

Clearly.

I'm having trouble thinking of caveats I wouldn't want instead of a championship, or a title, or whatever.

I'd rather be Lance Armstrong, as played, than any other cyclist, ever.

I'd rather be Tom Brady with a ball-deflation suspension on my resume than any other quarterback, ever.

The thing with Lance Armstrong was that he was the best by so far whilst juicing but it isn't like he had an unfair advantage because everyone else was too.

Brady always going to have that most sacks in a super bowl record too.

[VanDam]

I'd rather be Tom Brady with a ball-deflation suspension on my resume than any other quarterback, ever.

Tom Brady now stands alone, atop the football mountain. What better way to cement your legacy, than to achieve the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, on the grandest stage of them all? Incredible.

[VanDam]

Brady always going to have that most sacks in a super bowl record too.

No one will remember a statistic like that in 5-10 years... Championships are all that matter.

[Savy]

No one will remember a statistic like that in 5-10 years... Championships are all that matter.

Was kind of a joke. It's funny that most "bad" records, along with the good ones, in finals of any kind tend to go to the people who are so good they have been in so many finals.

[VanDam]

Was kind of a joke. It's funny that most "bad" records, along with the good ones, in finals of any kind tend to go to the people who are so good they have been in so many finals.

Could have been a lot more sacks for the Atlanta defense, if they would have not stopped blitzing in the second half.... Unfortunately.

[BananaStand]

Could have been a lot more sacks for the Atlanta defense, if they would have not stopped blitzing in the second half.... Unfortunately.

They couldn't cover all the patriots weapons in the second half. Once Blount sat down, Atlanta needed more guys to cover the pass.

Also, Atlanta's defense was gassed. Doubt a blitz would have even helped.

[BananaStand]

Tom Brady now stands alone, atop the football mountain. What better way to cement your legacy, than to achieve the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, on the grandest stage of them all? Incredible.

Not gonna argue with you about Mt. Brady. But what about top Franchise/Dynasty?

From 1981 to 1994 the San Francisco 49ers played in 9 Conference Championship games, and won 5 super bowls. And they did it with two coaches, and two quarterbacks. That's not a small feat. Plus, the AFC only won one super bowl during that stretch, so the 49ers got to the dance by way of championship level competition. Redskins, Bears, Giants, Cowboys, Etc.

Did the Pats top that?

[VanDam]

Not gonna argue with you about Mt. Brady. But what about top Franchise/Dynasty?

From 1981 to 1994 the San Francisco 49ers played in 9 Conference Championship games, and won 5 super bowls. And they did it with two coaches, and two quarterbacks. That's not a small feat. Plus, the AFC only won one super bowl during that stretch, so the 49ers got to the dance by way of championship level competition. Redskins, Bears, Giants, Cowboys, Etc.

Did the Pats top that?

I'm with you 100%. When I look at the NFC in the 1980's and early 90's, I consider it to be the golden era of competition for the conference. Also, if it wasn't for Montana's injuries piling up as his career went on, I believe he would have one himself at least 1 more ring, and the franchise would have 6 or 7 Lombardi trophies to their name.

In my opinion, it all comes down to whether or not the Patriots win 6 under Bill. If they do, I put them #1 all-time... Especially, for winning them all in this era of Free Agency. Believe me, I am a Steelers fan... But, the facts are the facts.

[BananaStand]

I'm with you 100%.

Slow down there playa. I haven't declared myself on one side or the other of that debate, I just posed the question. It's close, but I think the Pats did it better.

You really can't use Montana's injuries as an excuse. He made it to the conference championships with Kansas City. San Fran definitely cut ties with Montana before it affected them too badly. If we're making excuses....the penalty on Ellis Hobbs in '06......a missed XP in Denver last year.....Eli in the grasp..... Just a few minor, tiny, slight, subtle turns of events were the difference between New England having 5 like they do now and having potentially 7 or 8.

San Fran gets honorable mention for doing it with two coaches and two quarterbacks. That's evidence of a winning culture within the organization. I don't think the Patriots have much to prove on that front though.

Free Agency is a unique challenge that San Fran didn't have, but mostly I just think players back then were slower, dumber, and weaker than they are now.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-38934738

So...anyone else who would be tempted to just pocket a kilo or twenty before calling the cops?

[BananaStand]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-38934738

So...anyone else who would be tempted to just pocket a kilo or twenty before calling the cops?

Wait a minute....50 million gbp for 360 kilos? If I'm doing my math right, that's roughly $175 per gram.

Sorry to sound naive, but is that what coke costs??

[Poopadoop]

Wait a minute....50 million gbp for 360 kilos? If I'm doing my math right, that's roughly $175 per gram.

Sorry to sound naive, but is that what coke costs??

Don't know. Pretty sure it's quite a bit more expensive here than in N. America though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wait a minute....50 million gbp for 360 kilos? If I'm doing my math right, that's roughly $175 per gram.

Sorry to sound naive, but is that what coke costs??

Well, like 20 years ago is the last time I knew anything about the pricing. Back then, 1/4 gram of coke ran about as much as 1/4 ounce of weed.

I don't know if that helps or not.

[Poopadoop]

I'm more interested in hearing what people would do if they were walking on the beach and just found £56m worth of coke sitting there.

[BananaStand]

I can't imagine anyone keeping just some and turning the rest in. Either you want it for personal use, or you want to sell it. In either case, why wouldn't you keep all of it? An addict is not going to give up a lifetime supply. And anyone with connections to sell wouldn't leave profit on the beach.

[The Bean Counter]

I'm more interested in hearing what people would do if they were walking on the beach and just found £56m worth of coke sitting there.

My snap thought was scoop it up and sell it. Then I realised I have zero experience in doing that, zero connections and would be totally out of my depth in any negotiations, especially if things got violent. Plus I'd likely get caught because I'd have no idea how to cover myself. So I'd probably sigh, call the police and think about my decision for every day in my remaining life.

[Savy]

£80 a gram is about the going rate at final point of purchase.

I'm sure that it gets a fair bit diluted between those two stages but that does seem excessive. Unaware if different parts of the country have different prices.

[OngBonga]

Tim Davey is just Davey now.

[OngBonga]

I can't imagine anyone keeping just some and turning the rest in. Either you want it for personal use, or you want to sell it. In either case, why wouldn't you keep all of it? An addict is not going to give up a lifetime supply. And anyone with connections to sell wouldn't leave profit on the beach.

lol

If I found this much coke on the beach, I'd take what I could and fuck off quickly, not returning for more. I would not notify the authorities.

I don't think I'd have a problem selling it, though I certainly wouldn't be asking £80 a gram for it. I'd be happy if I got £1k an ounce, which is around half the street value. Anyone selling it at £80 a gram will get probably caught or robbed in no time at all.

[OngBonga]

It was 360 kilos? I saw the quoted figure of £50 million, but didn't see how much that referred to. I was assuming they were using the end value of £80 a gram, which is ludicrous when talking about a bulk amount of drugs, especially on this scale.

It's worth much less than £80 a gram in its current form, but ironically it's worth a lot more overall because most small time dealers will cut it with glucose or something to bulk up its weight, meaning it's worth a fuck ton more than £80 a gram at street level because on the street a gram of coke probably has less than 10% coke.

[Savy]

The point was that £80 is a gram still leaves the figure well short of what is quoted.

[Poopadoop]

lol

If I found this much coke on the beach, I'd take what I could and fuck off quickly, not returning for more. I would not notify the authorities.

I don't think I'd have a problem selling it, though I certainly wouldn't be asking £80 a gram for it. I'd be happy if I got £1k an ounce, which is around half the street value. Anyone selling it at £80 a gram will get probably caught or robbed in no time at all.

Ya, there's a lot of issues with just carting off 360kg of coke and trying to sell it like you're Scarface or something.

I was trying to think of the first person I'd ask about selling drugs. I'm pretty sure he knows someone who knows someone ... and eventually I could find the guy who'd be interested in buying some large quantity. Not sure it'd be a quarter tonne of the stuff though, kinda doubt it. There's also a very real chance said guy would prefer to just blow my brains out and take my stash than give me a big pile of money.

In the end I'd probably decide it's not worth the risk of going to jail or getting killed. I might take a kilo for party supplies and keep it stashed somewhere off my property.

And ya I'm not calling the cops either. What for?

[Savy]

Trying to sell coke in a large quantity just sounds like good grounds for getting fucked over. You'd also 100% put most of it up you own nose because if you have some you'd use some and that'd lead to doing some more then some more.

[OngBonga]

If I was ever vulnerable to a cocaine habit, I'd have discovered it by now.

[OngBonga]

To be fair, savy is right. The majority of people who find this that are inclined to keep it are the kind of people who are inclined to put at least some of it up their nose. Chances are, this is purer than street coke and will blow the head off the average British coke head. Arrogance kicks in, people get flashy, before you know it you've got an entourage of hangers on who will take money/coke off you and disappear the instant your back is turned. Most people who find and keep some or all of this coke will either end up arrested, robbed or dead within a short amount of time. I do, however, think I'm in the minority. First thing I'd do with it is bury it somewhere where it's unlikely to be found, and try to forget it even exists for at least 6 months. I wouldn't be having a cocaine bitch party, that's for sure. A lot of people would though.

[Poopadoop]

I would love to meet the guy who puts most of 360kg up his nose lol.

I also would definitely not be telling anyone I had a kilo stashed in the forest somewhere. Also pretty sure I wouldn't go on any crazy binge. But I'm also sure a lot of guys would.

[Poopadoop]

First thing I'd do with it is bury it somewhere where it's unlikely to be found, and try to forget it even exists for at least 6 months.

That would be the thing to do if your plan was to sell it; just keep it quiet for a while.

[OngBonga]

I would definitely want to have a cocaine bitch party.

That's what I'd do if I didn't give a fuck about the money and my health/sanity and just wanted to snort it. Get me some bitches.

[OngBonga]

I'd do the same if I found a big bag of cash... fucking bury it and live my life as normal. I'd only disappear if and when it wasn't obviously linked to the missing money. Nobody is gonna think I've got a shit load of cash when I'm still wearing the same clothes I've had for years. If the first thing you do when you find lots of money is go on a spending spree, people ask questions. Sure I could blah blah my way through a few conversations about a big poker win, but if someone is asking questions locally, my name might get mentioned.

When something like this is found, there's a very good chance that somebody will be unhappy about your good fortune. From that point of view, I can understand calling the police. The people who this coke belonged to are very unlikely to risk exposure by bothering the person who called the cops. There's nothing to gain in return for the risk. On the other hand, if you get seen leaving the scene with a bag or two stuffed in your coat, well they will be keen to get their hands on what you took because it will help mitigate the losses. If there was a risk I'd get seen and recognised, fuck knows what I'd do. Calling the cops is a no. Taking a few would be super risky. Not taking any before it gets found by someone else would be foolish, especially considering someone might still see you and recognise you, and the bad guys might not believe you didn't take any.

Fuck it, I'm still in the "take what you can and get the fuck out of there quickly" camp. Life's one big risk.

[Savy]

I would love to meet the guy who puts most of 360kg up his nose lol.

I was kind of thinking you wouldn't have anywhere near that much even if you took a load of it. That being said your nose doesn't just mean you as an individual, friends etc.

[Poopadoop]

I was kind of thinking you wouldn't have anywhere near that much even if you took a load of it. That being said your nose doesn't just mean you as an individual, friends etc.

I still prefer to imagine one guy snorting hundreds of kilos versus your more reasonable scenario.

Like so:

Ong.jpg

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lol.

Ong digging a hole in the woods...

... to hide drugs in.

The time-lapse reenactment video would go viral, for sure.

[Savy]

I occasionally watch an episode of tabletop as I think MMM posted it in a youtube thread a while ago and I sometimes like the guests. Tend to get a bit bored 10 minutes through and turn off but as the new season has started #AD (i wish) I was wondering how many of you actually sit down with friends and play board games. I genuinely can't imagine any of my friends doing this, which is strange.

[Poopadoop]

I know people who sit down and play Dungeons and Dragons if that counts, but as for me I haven't played a board game in at least 12 years.

[BananaStand]

I have three kids under age 10. I play board games all the friggen time. Probably not what you guys are talking about though

I will say "exploding kittens" is a supremely fun game for any age.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Game night is best night.

I do keep up with Table Top. Tiny, Epic Galaxies looks really fun.

I live in a 4 unit apartment building. We all gather in one of the apartments about once every month or so and order pizza and play games.
They are more into card games than board games, so we frequent Cards Against Humanity and any form of Flux, most often C'thulu Flux.

[Savy]

Cards against humanity has always struck me as a bit try hard.

I suppose my first year at uni we used to play card games to kill time so I suppose it's the same kind of thing just a bit more organised.

[Savy]

Taking Ongs check mate idea one step further.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Cards against humanity has always struck me as a bit try hard.

Agreed, I think. If you mean that plenty of equally funny and wrong responses could come from less raunchy choices, then yeah.

It's a nice ice breaker for a new group of gamers to get together and play. It makes it clear that you're there to have fun, and anything that may be offensive outside the context of the gaming is all part of the fun of cutting loose and having a good time w/o being judged by the other peeps.

It's like, "Hey, it's safe here to say outlandish things in the interest of getting soda to spray out of someone else's nose."

[Savy]

anything that may be offensive outside the context of the gaming is all part of the fun of cutting loose and having a good time w/o being judged by the other peeps.

That's a good point. I think my problem with it is people who aren't really that funny trying to be funny but in "extreme" ways.

Forums that I use seem to be in a real decline recently. Have been for years but definitely going through a slow patch & it's not like they are going to get new people anytime soon. Is the death of forums a common thing? I assume others use different forums here. It's hard because places like reddit, which I've just never got into, feel too impersonal and those that have a good sense of community kind of reject new members by being a bit too cliquey.

Shame really because a lot of the internet now is too specific. Like I want to do x find place that does x. This is a poker forum but I've learnt loads of cool shit about physics, psychology, economics, etc because although we all came here about poker other intricacies of members come through.

[wufwugy]

That's a good point. I think my problem with it is people who aren't really that funny trying to be funny but in "extreme" ways.

Forums that I use seem to be in a real decline recently. Have been for years but definitely going through a slow patch & it's not like they are going to get new people anytime soon. Is the death of forums a common thing? I assume others use different forums here. It's hard because places like reddit, which I've just never got into, feel too impersonal and those that have a good sense of community kind of reject new members by being a bit too cliquey.

Shame really because a lot of the internet now is too specific. Like I want to do x find place that does x. This is a poker forum but I've learnt loads of cool shit about physics, psychology, economics, etc because although we all came here about poker other intricacies of members come through.

The decline of forums is a common thing but I'm not sure the death is. Smart phones and Reddit are for sure taking a sledge hammer to forums, but I think some people see that and don't like it and gravitate towards forums. There are big forums focused on single topics that branch out to others the same way FTR does, but FTR is hurt league of big by US poker policy.

[CoccoBill]

Anyone know how the number of active users has changed here over the years?

[oskar]

The trouble with forums is that they only work well at a certain size. Once you surpass a critical number of active users you can't possibly keep up and it becomes a clusterfuck. The battle.net forums are a good example for a sensible hybrid where posts are in chronological order but they have an upvote and highlight system based on upvotes and status of the member. Battle.net is insufferable for different reasons. The subreddits that deal with strategy only work when they're at a size where they are basically operating like a forum. A pure vote based system really does not work when 9/10 people don't know what they're talking about and valuable posts get buried in favor of popular opinion posts that are mostly wrong. I do lots of recording and mixing, but I haven't been on any of the related forums for years because the amount of shit posts in relation to anything remotely helpful is way too high.

[Poopadoop]

Taking Ongs check mate idea one step further.

I was waiting for Ong's response to this but I guess he's too busy walking up and down the beach looking for any suspicious packages that may have washed ashore.

[OngBonga]

I was waiting for Ong's response to this but I guess he's too busy walking up and down the beach looking for any suspicious packages that may have washed ashore.

haha

Actually, I've been busy with the family the last week. Birthdays, photo shoots etc.

[OngBonga]

Cards against humanity has always struck me as a bit try hard.

It's a great party game, but it only works once. It's a joke that wears thin quickly.

[The Bean Counter]

I was wondering how many of you actually sit down with friends and play board games. I genuinely can't imagine any of my friends doing this, which is strange.

Started doing this again once I turned 30. Not a bad thing to do as a couple if you're visiting relatives or have a few people over for something to eat and a few drinks. We keep it pretty simple: Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble of Cluedo normally.

I wouldn't do this with just me and my mates though when we catch up. If we don't choose to go down the pub for the night, we just get the consoles out.

[OngBonga]

I was wondering how many of you actually sit down with friends and play board games. I genuinely can't imagine any of my friends doing this, which is strange.

I missed this, obviously scanning savy's posts half heartedly.

I sometimes play board games with friends. Ghettopoloy was doing the rounds for a while, there was War on Terror, we played Risk for a while... we were even playing a turbo Monopoly game aimed at kids only the other day. I hate Monopoly though, your fate resting on the whim of the dice and your ability to pay attention for an entire fucking game so you don't miss rent. Arguing over trades, getting pissy because you haven't got a fucking set. I hate Monopoly.

[OngBonga]

When we do play Monopoloy, we have "skinning up rights", which basically means if you're rolling a spliff, then you automatically get rent if someone lands on you. This rule was put in place to ensure that those rolling spliifs didn't have to concentrate on the game when it wasn't their go, allowing them to get on with the more important job.

Same applies if you're making a round of tea.

[Poopadoop]

your ability to pay attention for an entire fucking game so you don't miss rent.

I'm reading this thinking 'how hard is it to remember what properties you own?'...

When we do play Monopoloy, we have "skinning up rights", which basically means if you're rolling a spliff, then you automatically get rent if someone lands on you.

...and then it all became clear why memory was a problem when Ong and his friends were playing.

[Poopadoop]

Agreed Monopoly is a dumb game though. It seems to be about 99% luck and maybe 1% wheeling and dealing. And the amount of sense you need to see if a deal is good or bad is basically 'can you do simple maths', so really it's about 100% luck. Might as well just roll dice and let the highest roll win - would save a lot of time.

Scrabble is a good game because it actually makes you think, not just about coming up with words but about future plays you and your opponent might be able to make if you do 'x', for example.

[LimaHassan]

Hi

[oskar]

a/s/l?

[OngBonga]

I'm reading this thinking 'how hard is it to remember what properties you own?'...

It's not about remembering. One doesn't need to remember anything, because one has the title deeds all neatly lined up. The problem is I'm not very good at paying attention to boring things like other people moving their piece round the board. I'm better at picking up on everyone suddenly going quiet while the next person to roll holds the dice for the standard ten seconds, but even this slips past me sometimes.

There's a little more than 1% strategy, imo. Sometimes one has to pay over the odds for a property one doesn't want, just to avoid someone else getting it and building hotels on it.

Last time I played properly, I had an argument with my friend because I wouldn't sell him a property that he needed. I didn't need it, and he had nothing I needed, but he felt I should sell it to him because otherwise he had no chance of winning. I pointed out that I wanted him to remain broke because my only chance of winning was to bankrupt him and take his property off him for nothing. He thought that was selfish. I pointed out it's fucking monopoloy and capitalism is king, welcome to the real fucking world.

Can't be doing with stressful arguments with friends over a stupid game.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's worth pointing out that Monopoly was designed to be a frustrating and unpleasant game.
The whole point was to highlight the problems with monopolistic capitalism.

Most "House Rules" only exacerbate the problem by extending the game by injecting more cash into players hands.

Determining which color properties are the most valuable and how much to build them up is far from "simple" math.

Someone mentioned Hotels earlier. Never build Hotels. There are finite number of houses and hotels in the game, and you cannot build a hotel unless you pay 4 houses, reinjecting those houses into the bank, where your opponents can buy them. The marginal benefit from building a hotel on your property is overshadowed by the fact that you've allowed your opponents to advance their properties by 4 pips, whereas you only got to increase your properties by 1 pip.

Wake up sheeple.

[Poopadoop]

Determining which color properties are the most valuable and how much to build them up is far from "simple" math.
.

notsureifsrs.jpg

You (and everyone) knows Boardwalk (or w/e the England version equivalent is) is the most valuable property, get it and Park Place and build everything you can on it. After that, the green ones. It's not complicated.

And if you can get a monopoly while keeping others from doing so (all due to luck because only an idiot will willingly trade you for a property that gives you a monopoly) then you win practically 100% of the time.

Dumb game.

[Poopadoop]

He thought that was selfish. I pointed out it's fucking monopoloy and capitalism is king, welcome to the real fucking world.

Can't be doing with stressful arguments with friends over a stupid game.

There should be a game called 'communist monopoly'; everything just gets distributed equally. Just as dumb as the real thing but in a different way.

[MadMojoMonkey]

notsureifsrs.jpg

You (and everyone) knows Boardwalk (or w/e the England version equivalent is) is the most valuable property, get it and Park Place and build everything you can on it. After that, the green ones. It's not complicated.

And if you can get a monopoly while keeping others from doing so (all due to luck because only an idiot will willingly trade you for a property that gives you a monopoly) then you win practically 100% of the time.

Dumb game.

Lies. All lies!
Game theory and probability theory have conclusively proved that:
Most expensive != most valuable

The most valuable properties are the Orange Properties which are ~7 spaces away from jail, which is the most often visited space in the game, and 7 is the EV of a roll of 2 dice.

After that, it depends on how many opponents you have. More accurately, it depends on how many other turns happen in between your own turns.


EDIT: See above about building hotels. Unless you're playing with a house rule of infinite houses and hotels, then you help your opponents more than you help yourself by upgrading your properties to hotels.

[Poopadoop]

Lies. All lies!
Game theory and probability theory have conclusively proved that:
Most expensive != most valuable

The most valuable properties are the Orange Properties which are ~7 spaces away from jail, which is the most often visited space in the game, and 7 is the EV of a roll of 2 dice.

After that, it depends on how many opponents you have. More accurately, it depends on how many other turns happen in between your own turns.


EDIT: See above about building hotels. Unless you're playing with a house rule of infinite houses and hotels, then you help your opponents more than you help yourself by upgrading your properties to hotels.

Ok fine.

It's still a dumb game that's mostly luck. How do you get a monopoly on the orange properties, if not by luck or the other players' lack of knowledge of the game theory optimal way to play a dumb game (which is another way of saying if you're lucky your opponents have better things to do with their lives).

If there were more than minimal skill involved, we'd expect there to be some monopoly champion of the world with a big grand prize. We don't (or at least I've never heard of it).

Dumb game.

[wufwugy]

Wake up sheeple.

I was seriously asleep on all this. Gonna gank some foolz next time I play.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok fine.

It's still a dumb game that's mostly luck. How do you get a monopoly on the orange properties, if not by luck or the other players' lack of knowledge of the game theory optimal way to play a dumb game (which is another way of saying if you're lucky your opponents have better things to do with their lives).

If there were more than minimal skill involved, we'd expect there to be some monopoly champion of the world with a big grand prize. We don't (or at least I've never heard of it).

Dumb game.

Agreed.

Except for the part about "better things to do with their lives." That's at least a little bit jaded.

Solving for optimal strategy is one of the major draws of gaming in general. An entire field of mathematics is called game theory and is dedicated to the math of optimal strategies in choice-based scenarios. It may not be exciting to you, but plenty of people are excited by this kind of problem solving.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was seriously asleep on all this. Gonna gank some foolz next time I play.

You can find more on YouTube. I've linked to some Monopoly solutions in the past, so I know they're out there.
Matt Parker has one, for sure. Not sure if it was on the Numberphile channel or StandUpMaths channel, though.

[Savy]

Ok fine.

It's still a dumb game that's mostly luck. How do you get a monopoly on the orange properties, if not by luck or the other players' lack of knowledge of the game theory optimal way to play a dumb game (which is another way of saying if you're lucky your opponents have better things to do with their lives).

If there were more than minimal skill involved, we'd expect there to be some monopoly champion of the world with a big grand prize. We don't (or at least I've never heard of it).

Dumb game.

You realise if you were playing a game of monopoly with MMM prior to his post you'd have thought the exact same thing and he'd have had an edge on you. Then when you lost you'd just blame it on luck.

Bold is nonsense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Savy makes a good point, but that edge would be slim.

[Poopadoop]

Solving for optimal strategy is one of the major draws of gaming in general. An entire field of mathematics is called game theory and is dedicated to the math of optimal strategies in choice-based scenarios. It may not be exciting to you, but plenty of people are excited by this kind of problem solving.

I know all about game theory, thank you Sir. In fact, I've applied it in my own research on how people perform cooperative versus competitive actions. There is a clear polarity between how people try to be predictable in cooperation and unpredictable in competition in an otherwise identical movement.

One cool aspect of this work is that people are somewhat shit at being random. Even when they try to be completely random, they still generate patterns.

[Poopadoop]

You realise if you were playing a game of monopoly with MMM prior to his post you'd have thought the exact same thing and he'd have had an edge on you. Then when you lost you'd just blame it on luck.

Bold is nonsense.

A slim edge != 100% chance of winning. MMM might have won 11/20 games on average (just guessing but the real number is probably close to that), and his 'luck' would be just what I said - that I had better things to do that try to gain a slim edge in dumb game.

p.s. So yea bolded is not nonsense, because the game is still mostly luck. In fact, if MMM played someone else with the same knowledge of GTO monopoly the World Monopoly Champion would be 100% determined by chance. IOW, dumb game.

[Savy]

I never said you'd lose all of the time.

Can you think of any good games that don't have variance? I can't. I'm not saying making games 51/49 to the better player is ideal.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I know all about game theory, thank you Sir. In fact, I've applied it in my own research on how people perform cooperative versus competitive actions. There is a clear polarity between how people try to be predictable in cooperation and unpredictable in competition in an otherwise identical movement.

One cool aspect of this work is that people are somewhat shit at being random. Even when they try to be completely random, they still generate patterns.

Oops. Sorry. I forgot about your research.

The second point is one of the most fascinating things about being a person. We lie to ourselves all the time and we tell ourselves that we're good at things we are not and smart about things we barely understand. Our brains actively ignore huge swaths of what we could be capable of perceiving.

E.g. next time you look at yourself in the mirror, notice that you only ever see one eye looking directly back at you. OK, this makes sense.You're focusing on that one eye, and not the other one, so it makes sense. Here's the brain lie: when you look from one eye to the other, you see no transition. You see no blurred "sweeping camera" motion. The bottom line is that your eye definitely did receive that blurry info, and your brain was like, "yeah... that's just not useful." Whether or not your conscious mind finds it useful, you will ignore all of those blurry moments. Here's a clincher... when they would have been caused by your own motions. You still see stuff as blurry when you look out a car window. Your brain doesn't link the motion of the car to motion of your muscles, so it doesn't ignore the blurriness.

It's fascinating, this madness.

[Savy]

p.s. So yea bolded is not nonsense, because the game is still mostly luck. In fact, if MMM played someone else with the same knowledge of GTO monopoly the World Monopoly Champion would be 100% determined by chance. IOW, dumb game.

As would literally any game assuming perfect execution (which needs to be true in Monopoly too).

I was more so arguing that there would be a world championship with a big prize.

[Poopadoop]

I never said you'd lose all of the time.

You said when I lost I'd blame it on luck. That sounds to me like it was a foregone conclusion in your mind.

Can you think of any good games that don't have variance? I can't. I'm not saying making games 51/49 to the better player is ideal.

Chess? Checkers (draughts)? 0 variance in those if I'm not mistaken.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As would literally any game.

This. In any game where the opponents employ identical strategies, either the game is biased toward one of them (who goes first?) or they will have equal chance of winning any given game.

[Savy]

Chess? Checkers (draughts)? 0 variance in those if I'm not mistaken.

Then why doesn't the better player always win? Does ELO not even allow us to make predictions about how often an X rated player would lose to a Y rated player?

[Savy]

You said when I lost I'd blame it on luck. That sounds to me like it was a foregone conclusion in your mind.

If you play a game with two outcomes you have the following

1 - When you win
2 - When you lose

As I was only talking about one of them I said when you lose. The times you'd win you wouldn't blame it on luck you'd probably think something more along the lines of well luck is involved but I'm playing pretty great so I probably win more often than I lose so said result is expected.

[Savy]

Checkers is also solved so always ends in a draw, boring.