yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

How to Win with Game Theory & Defeat Smart Opponents | Kevin Zollman | Big Think


3m read
·Nov 3, 2024

When one is confronted with a situation that’s truly zero sum, where one party is going to win and the other party is going to lose, a situation is very complicated and sometimes difficult to analyze. Game theory spent much of its early days analyzing zero sum games and trying to figure out what’s the best strategy. It’s a little complicated because it depends critically on how sophisticated you think the other party is.

If they’re very, very, very smart, the chances that you’re going to outthink them are not very high. In such a situation, oftentimes the best strategy is very counterintuitive, because it involves flipping a coin, rolling a dice, or doing something random. Professional poker players know this, and they oftentimes advocate in poker strategy books that one should occasionally do something completely counterintuitive in order to keep your opponents off guard.

And in fact, game theory has shown that this is good, solid, mathematically well-founded advice, that oftentimes what you want to do is engage in a kind of random strategy—game theorists call this a mixed strategy—in order to make sure that your opponent can’t get the leg up on you. The nice thing about these random strategies is that they ensure that your opponent can never outthink you. So even if you think your opponent is a little smarter than you, or a little bit more sophisticated than you, or has a little bit more information than you do, the fact that you’re being random to a certain extent means that they can’t outthink you.

Now how do you figure out how to be random? I’m not saying just flip a coin all the time or whatever. What game theorists have figured out is that in zero sum games, the best strategy to pursue when you’re against a sophisticated opponent is to adopt the strategy which minimizes your maximum loss. This is sometimes called the mini-max strategy.

So the idea is you think: what’s the worst-case scenario for me? What could my opponent do that would make me worse off? And then you figure out what’s the best strategy against that, so you’re minimizing your maximum loss. Game theorists prove that if you use this way of thinking, minimizing your maximum loss, you ensure that no matter how sophisticated your opponent is, you’ve guarded against the worst-case scenario.

And not only that, but in zero sum games you’ve done the best you can possibly do. That’s not true in games that aren’t zero sum, so one has to be very careful about employing this strategy because if you’re mistaken and you’re not in a zero sum interaction, you could end up ruining it for everybody. But if you’re truly in a zero sum interaction, this is one of the strategies that you can use.

Now suppose that you’re dealing with an opponent who’s not sophisticated; you are smarter than they are. There it depends very much on: how smart are they? Can you outthink them? And what’s the individual interaction that you’re engaged in? So to return to the example of poker players, poker players will engage in interactions where they’re trying to think, “Well, does my opponent think I’m going to bluff here, yes or no? And maybe I’ll do the opposite.”

But that’s going to depend on how smart your opponent is, what they are thinking about, and the individual interaction that you’re engaged in. Game theorists have actually proven—although it’s not very helpful—but game theorists have actually proven that there is no one size fits all strategy in a situation where you’re dealing with an opponent who is not very sophisticated.

More Articles

View All
See How Termites Inspired a Building That Can Cool Itself | Decoder
In 1991, architect Mick Pearce had a problem. An investment group in Harare, Zimbabwe, hired him to design the largest office and retail building in the country. But they didn’t want to pay for the expensive air conditioning needed to cool such a large bu…
Inequalities word problems | 6th grade | Khan Academy
We’re told that Eric is shorter than Preethi. Preethi is 158 centimeters tall. Write an inequality that compares Eric’s height in centimeters, E, to Preethi’s height. Pause this video and see if you can do that. All right, so we have Eric’s height, which…
7 Best Questions Asked at Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting
Why are you recommending listeners to buy now yet you’re not comfortable buying now as evidenced by your huge cash position? Well hey, as I just explained, the position isn’t that huge. When I look at worst-case possibilities, I would say that there are …
Identifying composite functions | Derivative rules | AP Calculus AB | Khan Academy
We’re going to do in this video is review the notion of composite functions and then build some skills recognizing how functions can actually be composed. If you’ve never heard of the term composite functions, or if the first few minutes of this video loo…
Second derivatives (implicit equations): evaluate derivative | AP Calculus AB | Khan Academy
So we have a question here from the 2015 AP Calculus AB test, and it says, “Consider the curve given by the equation ( y^3 - xy = 2 ).” It can be shown that the first derivative of ( y ) with respect to ( x ) is equal to that. So they solved that for us. …
McCulloch v. Maryland | Foundations of American democracy | US government and civics | Khan Academy
In this video, we’re going to talk about one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases that has helped determine the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and that’s McCulloch versus Maryland. So the year is 1816. After the…