|
So I was a little bored, and I discovered an interesting paper (while preparing to write a final paper about internet poker and jurisdiction over the individual players and companies) about using statistical models to determine whether a game is one of chance or is one of skill or more skill and less chance or vice versa, the authors use an index of 0-1 (link here).
This determination is especially relevant to the law, because there are a lot of gaming statutes that read something like:
“it is not allowed to exploit games with monetary prizes if the participants in general do not have a predominant influence on the winning possibilities, unless in compliance to this act, a licence is granted”
So say you start a casino and you offer put up a roulette wheel, well now you need a license because the participants do not have a predominate influence on the winning possibilities.
Now say you organize a chess (a game with no random elements) tournament, well here the participants do have a predominate influence and you don’t need a license; i.e., feel free to organize as many chess tournaments as you want.
Consider a third game, you organize a tournament of rock-paper-scissors, suppose a beginner strategy is to play 1/3 rock, 1/3 paper, 1/3 scissors (this beginner won’t play rock 100% of the time), then statistically the optimal player cannot play any better than the beginner. In effect, this game requires no “skill” and rather more of a game of chance.
Basically the authors conclude that the more moves involved in a game (in poker the more betting rounds), the more skill is injected into the game and the more variance between beginner strategy and expert strategy.
Of course Starcraft, is not just about strategy, it requires physical feats (imagine running), and you are free to organize as many running tournaments for money as you want, so a game like Starcraft wouldn’t need a license under such a regime.
Final note:
I find SSRN to be a great FREE resource, about a wide-variety of topics, most of them cutting edge and all very well cited. Anyone, who is writing final papers or doing research this is a great place to start!! I recently put my article up there, but it would probably bore the crap out of you all (it’s about patent law and the pharmaceutical industry) still feel free to read it link here and give feedback if you want. Already some professors from other universities, have emailed me out of the blue, about my paper, which I thought was pretty damn cool of them. So if you are trying to get published academically, you might want to consider this website.
|
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game.
|
Scissors / paper / rock can be a game of skill. I believe there are tournaments where successful players can exploit the psychology of it.
|
On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game.
I feel that I have to bring this up:
In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#Tournaments
The amount of cash involved in this melts my mind.
|
sorry but i still cant agree that poker is game of the skill  i have been playing poker over 3 years, online winings 100k+ in PS, and 50k+ in william hill, i think big factor in poker is luck doesnt matter how F skilled you are if all you get is 55o or something similar, and your oponents get top pairs.
|
Competitive games always have metagames - the playstyle a person uses according to his/her history or a statistical probability of a population(for example ICCUP D+ level player) using a certain strategy.
Let's take two examples :
1. Chess - is 100% skill, because you have all the information and the moves are always deterministic
Even in chess you can use metagame knowledge to your advantage so you beforehand anticipate your opponent moves and prepare follow-ups for them.
2. Rock-paper-scissors - is 100% luck, because you don't know what move your opponent will use(unless you're a medium and read his mind).
The opponent's history(if known) now tells you for example how frequently he uses Rock in first round etc. Very important knowledge because humans tend to have styles in everything.
|
On April 21 2011 17:18 LastWish wrote:
2. Rock-paper-scissors - is 100% luck, because you don't know what move your opponent will use(unless you're a medium and read his mind).
The opponent's history(if known) now tells you for example how frequently he uses Rock in first round etc. Very important knowledge because humans tend to have styles in everything.
If the game is 100% luck then knowing his first round history won't help at all. By admitting knowing his history is important you are contradicting your assertion rock paper scissors is 100% luck aren't you?
|
On April 21 2011 17:47 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 17:18 LastWish wrote:
2. Rock-paper-scissors - is 100% luck, because you don't know what move your opponent will use(unless you're a medium and read his mind).
The opponent's history(if known) now tells you for example how frequently he uses Rock in first round etc. Very important knowledge because humans tend to have styles in everything.
If the game is 100% luck then knowing his first round history won't help at all. By admitting knowing his history is important you are contradicting your assertion rock paper scissors is 100% luck aren't you?
Yeah it's quite contradictory.
Also, you don't necessarily even need to know that specific person's history.
For example, you could perhaps, through extensive research, find that it's slightly less (or slightly more?) common for a large group of test subjects to repeat the same symbol (paper/scissor/rock) twice in a row. Therefore you could play slightly better odds overall by using this knowledge on any opponent.
|
I prefer games of thrones
|
On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: Show nested quote +In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind.
Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability.
|
rock-paper-scissor is almost 100% luck and the psychology is pretty much bs if you don't have a huge data base.
Also even if you have a data base the other player could also know his own tendencies and play the exact opposite if there is money on the line.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
( Cool read for people who don't know a lot about probabilities / game theory ). You can't solve rock-paper-scissor.
|
On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability.
Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning.
I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there.
|
On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there.
Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ?
|
On April 21 2011 17:17 whiteLotus wrote:sorry but i still cant agree that poker is game of the skill i have been playing poker over 3 years, online winings 100k+ in PS, and 50k+ in william hill, i think big factor in poker is luck doesnt matter how F skilled you are if all you get is 55o or something similar, and your oponents get top pairs.
You are obviously a troll cause no online poker player who is a winner would ever call poker a game of luck in the long run. Poker is a game with small edges and high variance imo.
I mean:
http://www.pokertableratings.com/stars-player-search/nanonoko
|
On April 21 2011 19:31 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there. Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ?
If you are saying there's no skill involved in RPS you are quite clueless. It's like saying to a poker reg when he makes continuation bet with nothing against passive fish that it's pure luck that he won. There are different suequences, strategies, tells, ways to force either of RPS etc. Of course, if you play randomly, you are guaranteed to have 50/50 w/l ratio in long run, but this fact doesn't matter at all as at RPS tournaments everyone plays to win.
|
On April 21 2011 21:52 ondik wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 19:31 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there. Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ? If you are saying there's no skill involved in RPS you are quite clueless. It's like saying to a poker reg when he makes continuation bet with nothing against passive fish that it's pure luck that he won. There are different suequences, strategies, tells, ways to force either of RPS etc. Of course, if you play randomly, you are guaranteed to have 50/50 w/l ratio in long run, but this fact doesn't matter at all as at RPS tournaments everyone plays to win.
I'm clueless really ?
Dude you are the one comparing poker to RPS
LOL.
|
On April 21 2011 22:44 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 21:52 ondik wrote:On April 21 2011 19:31 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there. Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ? If you are saying there's no skill involved in RPS you are quite clueless. It's like saying to a poker reg when he makes continuation bet with nothing against passive fish that it's pure luck that he won. There are different suequences, strategies, tells, ways to force either of RPS etc. Of course, if you play randomly, you are guaranteed to have 50/50 w/l ratio in long run, but this fact doesn't matter at all as at RPS tournaments everyone plays to win. I'm clueless really ? Dude you are the one comparing poker to RPS LOL.
No, I compared one very specific situation, is it so hard to understand? How about you react to other things I wrote? Right, because you know nothing about it and don't want to be proved wrong.
|
On April 21 2011 22:58 ondik wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 22:44 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 21:52 ondik wrote:On April 21 2011 19:31 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there. Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ? If you are saying there's no skill involved in RPS you are quite clueless. It's like saying to a poker reg when he makes continuation bet with nothing against passive fish that it's pure luck that he won. There are different suequences, strategies, tells, ways to force either of RPS etc. Of course, if you play randomly, you are guaranteed to have 50/50 w/l ratio in long run, but this fact doesn't matter at all as at RPS tournaments everyone plays to win. I'm clueless really ? Dude you are the one comparing poker to RPS LOL. No, I compared one specific situation, is it so hard to understand?
I think you need to learn some maths sorry.
|
Rock-Paper-Scissor: If you know the person well, you can predict his first move cause its usually the same :o.. if not, go paper. most people choose Rock > the other two
|
On April 21 2011 22:59 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 22:58 ondik wrote:On April 21 2011 22:44 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 21:52 ondik wrote:On April 21 2011 19:31 Boblion wrote:On April 21 2011 19:28 shurgen wrote:On April 21 2011 19:01 leetchaos wrote:On April 21 2011 16:46 CDRdude wrote:On April 21 2011 16:38 Mikilatov wrote:
Hm, I wonder how 'predominant influence' is determined.
I mean, if you were really good at psychology/reading people, you could perhaps turn the 33.33333% chances in rock paper scissors to 34-35%, or something. If the odds were set on 33.33333%, you could effectively have an 'predominant influence' on winning in such a game. I feel that I have to bring this up: In 2008, Sean "Wicked Fingers" Sears beat out 300 other contestants and walked out of the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino with $50,000 after defeating Julie "Bulldog" Crossley in the finals. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#TournamentsThe amount of cash involved in this melts my mind. Someone has to win. The question is can the same people win or make it to the final rounds with reliability. Well just looking at the link, it appears that some of the same players do keep on winning. I personally believe that RPS is a `skill` game at the higher levels, although it is definitely of the most luck-affected games out there. Some people win twice at the lottery in their life. Are they skilled or just lucky ? If you are saying there's no skill involved in RPS you are quite clueless. It's like saying to a poker reg when he makes continuation bet with nothing against passive fish that it's pure luck that he won. There are different suequences, strategies, tells, ways to force either of RPS etc. Of course, if you play randomly, you are guaranteed to have 50/50 w/l ratio in long run, but this fact doesn't matter at all as at RPS tournaments everyone plays to win. I'm clueless really ? Dude you are the one comparing poker to RPS LOL. No, I compared one specific situation, is it so hard to understand? I think you need to learn some maths sorry.
WTF has this to do with anything? I need to learn maths to know I should probably conbet into passive fish? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
