thanks for fundamental knowledge sir, i respected so much. for zero excusses challenges, to make the ordinary people can struggle stronger move faster and hold longer they must projected theyself as the special person who have that criteria, can projected as king, knight, superhero leader etc, so when they reach maximum limits, they have more power reserve to reach higher stages because the paradigma he projected as 'leader' must be and act stronger. maybe it can be useful variable, salam from indonesia.
"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation." Jane McGonigal
Good quote but the voluntary participation part is weird to me. If two siblings are forced to play a board game, it is still considered a game even though participation is mandatory.
@@joemartin7451 Entry to the game of life might not be voluntary, but participation certainly is. However, you cannot refuse to participate in life without starting a different game simultaneously.
This is the best explanation of game theory I am ever come across. This concept of visual essay is great. Thank you for breaking this complex concepts. I enjoyed as much as you enjoyed making it. :)
The other guys are right: it ain't good. I've studied it at a top university and I also work on Game Theory. This is a confused presentation made by a total novice.
At 5:45, In the prisoner's dilemma the only nash equilibrium is for both to Betray, not for both to cooperate/stay silent, at least in this 1 time period run of the game. A nash equilibrium by definition is each players best response given the other player's strategy. In the point where both cooperate, cooperating is not the best response to the other person cooperating, one can choose to betray and get a better payoff given the other person is cooperating/stay silent. The reason a nash equilibrium is a equilibrium is that because no other action given the other persons action can produce a better payoff, at the outcome where Both betray, neither of them can change their strategy to Stay silent and get a better payoff, therefore it is a nash equilibrium.
True but a pure nash equilibrium is also the point in which no player would deviate from their strategy, he's correct. If B chooses betray, A would prefer to stay silent as 3>2, if A chooses to betray player 2 would prefer stay silent as 3>2. But if B chooses to stay silent A would choose to stay silent as 1>0 and if A chooses to stay silent B would also choose to stay silent as 1>0. Therefore neither player would deviate. Both players betraying is not a nash equilibrium as its not either players best response based on the numerical representations of the preferences as given.
@@davidknipe4113 The table presented at 3:45 correctly depicts the terms of imprisonment according to the rules of the game as presented at 3:35, David. Note that the numbers in the matrix (table) do not represent a "score." Instead, they indicate the term of imprisonment for each player, respectively, depending on the choice each makes INDEPENDENTLY (i.e. without knowing the choice made by the other). According to the rules presented, each prisoner serves 1-year in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to remain silent ["1,1"]; OR each prisoner serves 2-years in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to betray the other [2,2]). This is accurately explained between 3:35 and 3:45 in the video. What IS wrong (or at least misleading) in the video, however, is how the author IMPLIES -- both verbally and in the video animation -- that prisoner "B" WAITS for prisoner "A" to betray him, and then prisoner "B" SUBSEQUENTLY betrays prisoner "A," so as to mitigate his own sentence (i.e. reduce his own prison sentence from 3-years to 2-years). This is in violation of rule #2 of the game, which states that the players cannot communicate with each other (each player must make his decision INDEPENDENTLY of the other, and the decision of each player is not revealed [to the other] and final adjudication not pronounced until BOTH players have submitted their irrevocable decisions).
@@infiniteeye9155 Yes, you're right on the first point. I thought it was the "score" (number of remaining years of freedom) but it does say it's the number of years in prison. (I'll not reply to the rest, because it's not related to anything I've said.)
Very well done. I was also very impressed by your presentation on Machiavelli. I am a researcher in the areas of ethics, political and societal responses to the concept and reality of homelessness. Rarely do I find such clear, concise and meaning ‘full’ presentations. Keep up the good work and happy new year 🥂!
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers! 5:43 In the Prisoners' Dilemma both players staying silent is not the Nash Equilibrium. Both betraying each other is a Nash Equilibrium. Definition of Nash Equilibrium. A result of the game in which no player has an incentive to change her strategy while the other player keeps her strategy the same is a Nash Equilibrium. If both players stay silent then prisoner A would like to change his strategy (betray) since that means he would get 0 years in prison, instead of 1. The same holds for prisoner B as well. Thus (stay silent, stay silent) isn't a Nash Equilibrium.
It is a self-inflicting tragedy that game theory is not formally taught in schools. We focus so much on the technicals, on the rote memorization, on passing standardized tests, that we no longer see the forest from the trees. Or in this case, the soil itself that is the foundation of the trees and ultimately the forest. In other words, we force students to memorize facts when we should be teaching them how to think rationally in a structured and formal way. Our current payoff strategy is a zero-sum game where if you are not at the top of your class, you are at the the bottom and be ridiculed as failures. There are no bad students, just bad teachers. By bad teachers, I include the education system in general. In a way, it’s a trickle down system. When the boss behave badly and the subordinates are helpless to change the boss because the boss of the boss is also behave badly, the structure breaks down the good teachers, making the good ones leave. This creates a vacuum where the bad ones thrive, resulting in organizational infighting. Bad teachers then trickle down to the last strata which is the students.
“There are no bad students, just bad teachers.“ INCORRECT ASSUMPTION There are good teachers and good students. As well as bad teachers and bad students. If you use your belief as a rule of thumb in life, you’d be making bad decisions and assessments.
I wonder if Game Theory is richly represented in the public school system, just not in the way that the public would enjoy. Perhaps Game Theory is deliberately withheld from being taught in the public school system. Those who are competing against the public have a reward for encouraging the development of suboptimal competitors. There's an exclusive club, and we're not in it.
I'm impressed. VERY impressed. Usually, I don't make time for longer video's, but your blog has intrigued me for years now. This is an excellent start, and I'm very much looking foward to many more in the future!
The concept of Nash equilibrium is a good follow-up to this video. When each player has nothing to gain by changing their strategy, we have reached equilibrium. This concept helps us examine in further detail, why a prisoner might defect against a fellow prisoner.
Great video man - proud to see you moving into the YT realm! I enjoy video essays like this and I can already tell that you will pour quality into these projects. I suppose my only word of advice as a mere watcher is to find a consistent voice, look, icon, or some sort of “meme” that will always be associated with yourself. You’ve likely already considered this though and I look forward to seeing more content!
Great work. Just two small comments though: 1) One of the assumption of all games is that the number of players is "2 or greater than 2", not "greater than 2" (see 2:31). 2) A very important assumption of game theory is "perfect information", which you have missed on the assumption list (see 2:47). This assumption greatly limits the usefulness of game theory in the real world because in many real-world situations, "perfect information" cannot be attained.
I’m very happy UA-cam suggested me your videos! My Audible book for this month is “The Art of Seduction” by Robert Greene and while doing some research on how my interactions differ with other people UA-cam suggested your content, please keep making more!
I don't have time now to produce more content. But I will do so in the future. I know that this channel has a lot of potential. Thanks for the support. :)
Best explanation, Game theory is not an easy one, it takes years and experience to master this as you have to understand your opponents ratio as its the most factor that will determine how to pursue other factors like their dominant strategy is placed
bro this was a fantastic video! i can tell you put a lot of love into it. "life oftentimes feels like a game. and usually, the winners are the ones who know how to play." brilliant!!!!
Greetings, Nash equilibrium for this game is actually for the prisoners to each choose to betray. The idea here is that the player is choosing their best move in response to the other player's best move.
5:51: "Nash's theory of equilibrium ... presupposes that in each game there is at least one point of equilibrium." No, it doesn't _presuppose_ the existence of an equilibrium. It _guarantees_ the existence of an equilibrium. (Under certain conditions... I don't know what the conditions are.)
in the prisoners dilema compared to a beautiful minds example, one of the big differences is thinking about the aftermath and colateral effects that come from our decisions. in the prisoners dilema it is not considered that if you snitch on the other prisoner, if and when they get out of prison they can go after you and ultimately make you pay the biggest price of all which is your life.
Fellow Greek here! It spooks me up that I was pondering with the same questions before I saw your video. Not many ppl do that, they prefer sticking on a more narrow set of beliefs which provides them an "ignorant bliss". Makes me glad to see more like minded people. It may be a good symptom for society. Great content keep it up!!
This is really enlightening. I have always been curious about philosophical stuff. After watching this video I visited your blog. They are really interesting and I would suggest all, to read your blog. Excellent piece of work. Spread the knowledge, Keep going and keep inspiring. Beautiful. :) :)
@@patinho5589 Life IS a finite game though and chess also doesn't have perfect information (since I don't know what moves my opponent will make), so it's a good enough analogy for me! 👍
Wow! I always wanted to know what Game Theory was about. I took Finite Mathematics with Professor Mylnorski. He told us that there was not time allotted in the course to teach Game Theory and Markov Chains. I was disappointed. Thank you for sharing this enlightening video. I learned about Markov Chains a few months ago. I like that scene in Beautiful Mind.
The issue here is that a rational response or self interest are context driven and of course under pressure people are not rational. A person's self interest might be motivated by unanticipated reasoning on the part of the individual assuming there is any reason at all versus some impulsive response.
At the outset, a load of thanks to the makers of this video. My focus is on the Stock market, and it is a zero sum game, meaning, one loser will get one winner, the platform gets its commission. Now, there are more than 2 players, and all the rules of GT is practiced. How do we explain the same and how do we become the winner, when 95 percent of the cases, investors lost their investment. Lookig for your thoughts, and my biases.
Great video, except there’s an error on the Prisoner’s Dilemma explanation of the Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is where the decision taken is the best outcome regardless of the other players decision or if they changed their decision you would not be worse off. The Nash equilibrium occurs when both players betray each other, since neither player can benefit by unilaterally changing their strategy. If one player stays silent while the other betrays, the betraying player gets a better outcome, and if both players stay silent, they both end up with a better outcome, but neither player can achieve a better outcome by changing their strategy if the other player keeps their strategy unchanged.
I like the topical exploration into game theory. Although the short-form content is entertaining, I'd be interested to hear a deeper level, long-form with the topics that your exploring. Possibly interviews or a Jordan Peterson style rant/ discussion. Great work. I like what you're up to.
I think the Nash Equilibrium on your quadrant should be 2,2 (not 1,1) because each inmate has a better pay off by changing strategies to confessing. As far as I know, Nash equilibrium are usually used to explain sub-optimal non-cooperative behavior as each player pursues his/her dominant strategy
Life's dominant strategy? Knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge empowers the experience, the more you know the more you do & see. Intelligence empowers your awareness. You are more intelligent the more sensitive you are to knowledge. Work on these in every situation and you'll never lose.
Wouldn't we assume players only act rationally after applying backward induction? Also, what you described at the 2:50 mark seems like a non-cooperative game, only
It was a really good starting video. So in order for this to work, and before you even think about finding the nash equilibrium, there have to be more players that desire the same reward, right?
Many people don't realize this but there is a popular trend that surfaced several years ago that is a metaphysical metaphor for the complex notion of what life, love, and power stand for and how we as individuals in pursuit of victories in our life both big and small will surely end up dissatisfied in the pursuit of such shallow endeavors. Players oftentimes will recite this mantra to their close companions to remind them "I lost the game"
In the Prisoners dilemma I don't think that both stay silent is the equilibrium, because if the other betray the outcome of that strategy would be worst than to betray always.... So the correct strategy is betray
Correct. The expected utility of betrayal is a one year prison sentence :(0 + 2)/2. The expected utility of staying silent is a two years prison sentence: (1+3)/2 Since we have no influence on the decision of the other prisoner, we have to calculate the expected utility based only on our own decision. As prisoner A we have to add the pay-offs in each row in the pay-off matrix and divide it by the number of possible options that are not under our control. We can only choose between the two rows, the columns are not subject to our decision. Cooperation would only make sense, if both prisoners can communicate and come to an agreement, which was explicitly stated as not possible.
Game theory steps simplified; 1. Betray/ Coop (fool me once, shame on you) 2. Betray/ Betray (fool me twice, shame on me) 3. Coop/ Coop (we're tired of fooling each other)
Get yourself a "spit removal" plugin for your audio. Just a quick tip. It will do wonders for people like me who lose all concentration from hearing those kinds of sounds. I cannot even get myself to even watch the video. 2:19-2:28 There's a ton more examples. But this will do wonders for your audio! Sounds more professional and less rage inducing for people with Misophonia.
@@metamorphosis_77 Oh, my bad I didn't check the date. And thank you for being humble about it. I will def check out more of your content, because I really liked how you presented this one. I just can't consentrate through mouth/spit noises. People probably think I am weird, but there's a lot of people like me out there.
Assumptions 4 and 5 are way too generous for most of the population. People are 99% irrational and rarely even have a faintest idea about what is in their personal self-interest.
I love game theory, because it's a theory. There are no hard and fast rules to any game. We make them up as we go along. No rules are ever made at the start of the game, for game theory relies on the evolution of rules. Game theory is one thing, then another, and then another. It is a series of constructs that are never planned. There are so many types of iterations that it resembles life.
4:45 There is no link between dominant strategies and optimality. The prisoners' dilemma just happens to be a game with both players having a dominant strategy that results in a suboptimal equilibrium. You can have suboptimal equilibria without dominant strategies as well. Dominant strategies is (part of) a solution method (something that generates a prediction) while optimality (ie Pareto optimality) is an equilibrium classification method.
John wrote the book to figure out/solve Texas Hold’em. Nash is the father of push/fold equilibrium for heads-up no limit Hold’em. Both of these men focused on game theory to solve poker. Kinda a key piece of information to leave out…
I see a drawback in Game theory pertaining to principles 4 & 5. I cannot perceive with sufficient certainty what constitutes as “rational and self- interest” for myself, let alone what they represent to a third party.
Intriqued as I have never heard of game theory before. I look forward to exploring this subject. Thank you! This subject alone pointed me to your channel. I am now a new subscriber. 🤔
Since it was my first video, and I had no experience in video editing, it took me a few days. However, I had the script ready from my essay and I believe this is the most difficult part; creating a great script that will lead to a well-articulated narrative.
En los primcipios de GT dices que los participantes tienen que interactuar. En el dilema del prisionero los prisioneros no tienen contacto el uno con el otro. Es decir, no interactuan.
though it's about 3 years ago. this video is astonishing. explain the terms simply. I felt by understanding some fundamentals it would be beneficial to deal with different aspects of real-life situations
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers! The scene from the Beautiful Mind is very inaccurate. The fact that competition and free market don't always yield the best results is known for about 30-40 years before Nash by the works of Schumpeter and Pigou. Also again you have hugely misunderstood what a Nash Equilibrium is. In the dating game depicted in the movie, each player has two strategies (blonde, not the blonde). Everyone playing (not the blonde) isn't a Nash Equilibrium since the players have incentive to change their strategy to (blonde) if other players keep their strategy constant.
Not really. The blonde showed interest on nash, and the propose comes from nash. so the others players have incentive to not play blonde if they wants to get laid.
You can find the REMASTERED version of the video here: ua-cam.com/video/KHNnuqmRvAU/v-deo.html
😎
thanks for fundamental knowledge sir, i respected so much.
for zero excusses challenges, to make the ordinary people can struggle stronger move faster and hold longer they must projected theyself as the special person who have that criteria, can projected as king, knight, superhero leader etc, so when they reach maximum limits, they have more power reserve to reach higher stages because the paradigma he projected as 'leader' must be and act stronger. maybe it can be useful variable, salam from indonesia.
I need this
you wrote than in place of then. sorry hehehe.
Is there any book about game theory????
"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."
Jane McGonigal
this is honestly a better sentence than the 12 minute video imo
Good quote but the voluntary participation part is weird to me.
If two siblings are forced to play a board game, it is still considered a game even though participation is mandatory.
@@LivinBilly Voluntary participation is essential. You can actually quit the game and just wait for entropy to log you out.
except in the game of life participation is not voluntary.
@@joemartin7451 Entry to the game of life might not be voluntary, but participation certainly is. However, you cannot refuse to participate in life without starting a different game simultaneously.
This is the best explanation of game theory I am ever come across. This concept of visual essay is great. Thank you for breaking this complex concepts. I enjoyed as much as you enjoyed making it. :)
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
If you'd actually study game theory, you quickly realize this is nothing but some weird glorification of game theory, like its the holy grail of life.
so i assume you never heard of it before? its not only a bad explanation, its just wrong, you would be better forgetting everything you heard here
The other guys are right: it ain't good. I've studied it at a top university and I also work on Game Theory. This is a confused presentation made by a total novice.
Veretasium also made a video about game theory.You can also check it out.That is also very good.
At 5:45, In the prisoner's dilemma the only nash equilibrium is for both to Betray, not for both to cooperate/stay silent, at least in this 1 time period run of the game. A nash equilibrium by definition is each players best response given the other player's strategy. In the point where both cooperate, cooperating is not the best response to the other person cooperating, one can choose to betray and get a better payoff given the other person is cooperating/stay silent. The reason a nash equilibrium is a equilibrium is that because no other action given the other persons action can produce a better payoff, at the outcome where Both betray, neither of them can change their strategy to Stay silent and get a better payoff, therefore it is a nash equilibrium.
The table is wrong anyway. It says they score 1,1 if they both stay silent, or 2,2 if they both betray. It should be the other way round.
In live human experiments at least 20% of the time both parties co-operate. We are more emotional than rational and many want to believe.
True but a pure nash equilibrium is also the point in which no player would deviate from their strategy, he's correct. If B chooses betray, A would prefer to stay silent as 3>2, if A chooses to betray player 2 would prefer stay silent as 3>2. But if B chooses to stay silent A would choose to stay silent as 1>0 and if A chooses to stay silent B would also choose to stay silent as 1>0. Therefore neither player would deviate. Both players betraying is not a nash equilibrium as its not either players best response based on the numerical representations of the preferences as given.
@@davidknipe4113 The table presented at 3:45 correctly depicts the terms of imprisonment according to the rules of the game as presented at 3:35, David. Note that the numbers in the matrix (table) do not represent a "score." Instead, they indicate the term of imprisonment for each player, respectively, depending on the choice each makes INDEPENDENTLY (i.e. without knowing the choice made by the other). According to the rules presented, each prisoner serves 1-year in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to remain silent ["1,1"]; OR each prisoner serves 2-years in prison if EACH chooses INDEPENDENTLY to betray the other [2,2]). This is accurately explained between 3:35 and 3:45 in the video.
What IS wrong (or at least misleading) in the video, however, is how the author IMPLIES -- both verbally and in the video animation -- that prisoner "B" WAITS for prisoner "A" to betray him, and then prisoner "B" SUBSEQUENTLY betrays prisoner "A," so as to mitigate his own sentence (i.e. reduce his own prison sentence from 3-years to 2-years). This is in violation of rule #2 of the game, which states that the players cannot communicate with each other (each player must make his decision INDEPENDENTLY of the other, and the decision of each player is not revealed [to the other] and final adjudication not pronounced until BOTH players have submitted their irrevocable decisions).
@@infiniteeye9155 Yes, you're right on the first point. I thought it was the "score" (number of remaining years of freedom) but it does say it's the number of years in prison.
(I'll not reply to the rest, because it's not related to anything I've said.)
Great to see this type of content and intellect on the internet. The video was well done. I will return. :)
😎
Sounds as greek accent.
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
Very well done. I was also very impressed by your presentation on Machiavelli.
I am a researcher in the areas of ethics, political and societal responses to the concept and reality of homelessness.
Rarely do I find such clear, concise and meaning ‘full’ presentations.
Keep up the good work and happy new year 🥂!
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers!
5:43 In the Prisoners' Dilemma both players staying silent is not the Nash Equilibrium. Both betraying each other is a Nash Equilibrium. Definition of Nash Equilibrium. A result of the game in which no player has an incentive to change her strategy while the other player keeps her strategy the same is a Nash Equilibrium. If both players stay silent then prisoner A would like to change his strategy (betray) since that means he would get 0 years in prison, instead of 1. The same holds for prisoner B as well. Thus (stay silent, stay silent) isn't a Nash Equilibrium.
@@angeloskoulas3988 I was thinking exactly the same thing. So I looked at the comments to see if someone else had noticed the flaw. Great 👍🏾
It is a self-inflicting tragedy that game theory is not formally taught in schools. We focus so much on the technicals, on the rote memorization, on passing standardized tests, that we no longer see the forest from the trees. Or in this case, the soil itself that is the foundation of the trees and ultimately the forest. In other words, we force students to memorize facts when we should be teaching them how to think rationally in a structured and formal way. Our current payoff strategy is a zero-sum game where if you are not at the top of your class, you are at the the bottom and be ridiculed as failures. There are no bad students, just bad teachers. By bad teachers, I include the education system in general. In a way, it’s a trickle down system. When the boss behave badly and the subordinates are helpless to change the boss because the boss of the boss is also behave badly, the structure breaks down the good teachers, making the good ones leave. This creates a vacuum where the bad ones thrive, resulting in organizational infighting. Bad teachers then trickle down to the last strata which is the students.
“There are no bad students, just bad teachers.“
INCORRECT ASSUMPTION
There are good teachers and good students.
As well as bad teachers and bad students.
If you use your belief as a rule of thumb in life, you’d be making bad decisions and assessments.
I wonder if Game Theory is richly represented in the public school system, just not in the way that the public would enjoy.
Perhaps Game Theory is deliberately withheld from being taught in the public school system. Those who are competing against the public have a reward for encouraging the development of suboptimal competitors. There's an exclusive club, and we're not in it.
people want to think rednecks don't exist
Teachers don't exist. It the politicians that are educating the students with policy.
game theory was taught in my first year of economics class idk about you
I'm impressed. VERY impressed. Usually, I don't make time for longer video's, but your blog has intrigued me for years now. This is an excellent start, and I'm very much looking foward to many more in the future!
You also have "mystery" voice, so fit for this type of video content.
The concept of Nash equilibrium is a good follow-up to this video. When each player has nothing to gain by changing their strategy, we have reached equilibrium. This concept helps us examine in further detail, why a prisoner might defect against a fellow prisoner.
But thats just a theory.. A GAAAAAAMMME THEORYYYYY
I got d reference 😁
well done
This is like an ad or a pamphlet. A teaser to learn about game theory.
I'm impressed, amazing and quality work everytime! Keep it up and a big thank you from Mexico!
Pretty sure this video got very many information wrong
Glad you keep doing it... they keep getting better and better
Congratulations
your voice is calm and you articulate your thoughts really well.
Great video man - proud to see you moving into the YT realm! I enjoy video essays like this and I can already tell that you will pour quality into these projects. I suppose my only word of advice as a mere watcher is to find a consistent voice, look, icon, or some sort of “meme” that will always be associated with yourself. You’ve likely already considered this though and I look forward to seeing more content!
That will come with time. :)
Great work. Just two small comments though: 1) One of the assumption of all games is that the number of players is "2 or greater than 2", not "greater than 2" (see 2:31). 2) A very important assumption of game theory is "perfect information", which you have missed on the assumption list (see 2:47). This assumption greatly limits the usefulness of game theory in the real world because in many real-world situations, "perfect information" cannot be attained.
I’m a simple guy. I see Machiavelli. I click.
me too
I see a Machiavelli and I push the trigger right away...
Machiavelli best political philosophy for real
I’m very happy UA-cam suggested me your videos! My Audible book for this month is “The Art of Seduction” by Robert Greene and while doing some research on how my interactions differ with other people UA-cam suggested your content, please keep making more!
Any update?
Robert Greene is a communist
any update?
Thank you. I've looked at so many videos that promised an explanation of game theory, and they all just showed game scenarios and solutions.
keep going. You deserve way more than 1k subs.. its astounding to me. Youll find a large audience in no time because the content is great.
I don't have time now to produce more content. But I will do so in the future. I know that this channel has a lot of potential. Thanks for the support. :)
This is the Clearest Way of Depicting the Game theory. I am well versed thank you
Best explanation, Game theory is not an easy one, it takes years and experience to master this as you have to understand your opponents ratio as its the most factor that will determine how to pursue other factors like their dominant strategy is placed
Thank you for all the thought-provoking video essays!
bro this was a fantastic video! i can tell you put a lot of love into it. "life oftentimes feels like a game. and usually, the winners are the ones who know how to play." brilliant!!!!
Greetings, Nash equilibrium for this game is actually for the prisoners to each choose to betray. The idea here is that the player is choosing their best move in response to the other player's best move.
Agreed!
Soldiers looking each other in the eyes: “What the fuck are we doing here”!
😆
5:51: "Nash's theory of equilibrium ... presupposes that in each game there is at least one point of equilibrium." No, it doesn't _presuppose_ the existence of an equilibrium. It _guarantees_ the existence of an equilibrium. (Under certain conditions... I don't know what the conditions are.)
David Knipe the conditions would need to be of perfection to produce equilibrium
@@godswill2260 What do you mean when you say "perfection"?
@@davidknipe4113 staying silent and being aware of your surroundings
One of our greatest freedoms we have is the way we react to things
in the prisoners dilema compared to a beautiful minds example, one of the big differences is thinking about the aftermath and colateral effects that come from our decisions. in the prisoners dilema it is not considered that if you snitch on the other prisoner, if and when they get out of prison they can go after you and ultimately make you pay the biggest price of all which is your life.
one of the best videos about game theory on youtube
Fellow Greek here!
It spooks me up that I was pondering with the same questions before I saw your video. Not many ppl do that, they prefer sticking on a more narrow set of beliefs which provides them an "ignorant bliss". Makes me glad to see more like minded people. It may be a good symptom for society.
Great content keep it up!!
what if new actors come and you aren't in charge of accepting them in previously your own game ...
High quality work! Love the explanation 👌🏽
Liked the conclusion of the video, well said!
Awesome video man. In Psychology, we use a lot of Game Theory as well. I like your practical approach to it. Keep it up!
How is it that Game Theory is used in Psychology?
This is really enlightening. I have always been curious about philosophical stuff. After watching this video I visited your blog. They are really interesting and I would suggest all, to read your blog. Excellent piece of work. Spread the knowledge, Keep going and keep inspiring. Beautiful. :) :)
Thank you Neha for this amazing comment. :) :)
:) :)
Impressed by the quality!
I just found your channel and it is actually amazing. Keep up the good work
Every move in life is like a game of chess, and it's important to always stay a step ahead ♟️💯
Except unlike chess, life is not a finite game of perfect information. So it’s really not like chess.
Well thats your view, I have another, but yours is just as valid
What sucks is when you don't want to play but you're the only one.
@@patinho5589
Life IS a finite game though and chess also doesn't have perfect information (since I don't know what moves my opponent will make), so it's a good enough analogy for me! 👍
With no redos
Wow! I always wanted to know what Game Theory was about. I took Finite Mathematics with Professor Mylnorski. He told us that there was not time allotted in the course to teach Game Theory and Markov Chains. I was disappointed. Thank you for sharing this enlightening video. I learned about Markov Chains a few months ago. I like that scene in Beautiful Mind.
Glad you keep doing it... they keep getting better and better Congratulations. Thank you for all the thought-provoking video essays!.
The issue here is that a rational response or self interest are context driven and of course under pressure people are not rational. A person's self interest might be motivated by unanticipated reasoning on the part of the individual assuming there is any reason at all versus some impulsive response.
This was a great video and structured to impart knowledge with outmost clarity .
One of the best videos on UA-cam that I have ever seen
Damn. This is an informative video! Keep on making authentic videos man! I love it! :)
At the outset, a load of thanks to the makers of this video. My focus is on the Stock market, and it is a zero sum game, meaning, one loser will get one winner, the platform gets its commission. Now, there are more than 2 players, and all the rules of GT is practiced. How do we explain the same and how do we become the winner, when 95 percent of the cases, investors lost their investment. Lookig for your thoughts, and my biases.
Great video, except there’s an error on the Prisoner’s Dilemma explanation of the Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is where the decision taken is the best outcome regardless of the other players decision or if they changed their decision you would not be worse off.
The Nash equilibrium occurs when both players betray each other, since neither player can benefit by unilaterally changing their strategy. If one player stays silent while the other betrays, the betraying player gets a better outcome, and if both players stay silent, they both end up with a better outcome, but neither player can achieve a better outcome by changing their strategy if the other player keeps their strategy unchanged.
check the remastered version
@Metamorphosis 77 it’s great. Thanks.
But hey, that's just a theory... A GAME THEORY!!!
John Nash received a prize for it though.. 🤷
Even has a movie about him: A Beautiful Mind
Lol hell yeah! I was like Matt patt?! O wait a video on actual game theory haha
In math, a theory is not just an unproven idea or hypothesis. It's more like a law in other sciences.
It's dope my dude. Great video
Great video! Thank you for making the concept simple and easy to understand.
Fascinating video, well explained and well diagrammed. Thank you - job well done!
Setting priorities and following through to achieve your goals keep you a step higher in life.
I like the topical exploration into game theory. Although the short-form content is entertaining, I'd be interested to hear a deeper level, long-form with the topics that your exploring. Possibly interviews or a Jordan Peterson style rant/ discussion.
Great work. I like what you're up to.
Ew, Jordan Peterson is a quack, but I agree a deeper dive would be wonderful
Awesome video. Great topic and excellent presentation. Subbed!
This has changed my life.
I think the Nash Equilibrium on your quadrant should be 2,2 (not 1,1) because each inmate has a better pay off by changing strategies to confessing. As far as I know, Nash equilibrium are usually used to explain sub-optimal non-cooperative behavior as each player pursues his/her dominant strategy
check remastered version
Very good video and visual , keep up the quality and thanks for the information.
Nice work, liked and subscribed with bells on
What an overly complicated yet entertaining way of saying compromise is better than selfish conquest.
Great presentation dude. Thanks for the video. Subscribed.
Well explained and blissful to watch 👏🏽👏🏽
I absolutely love your videos, keep it up!
Life's dominant strategy? Knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge empowers the experience, the more you know the more you do & see. Intelligence empowers your awareness. You are more intelligent the more sensitive you are to knowledge. Work on these in every situation and you'll never lose.
Love it ! Thanks for sharing !
Love it ! Thanks for sharing !
Keep up the great work!
Thank YOU!
So value in this podcast! You guys continually help me improve as a trainer and i very much appreciate it
Nice introduction to game theory in 12 min - thanks mate 👌
I really enjoyed this, plus your bit at the end, many thanks :)
Wonderful stuff, great video editing work.
Thank you very much! :)
great! looking forward to more!
The wise thing here is being careful of what games you play first.
Wouldn't we assume players only act rationally after applying backward induction? Also, what you described at the 2:50 mark seems like a non-cooperative game, only
It was a really good starting video. So in order for this to work, and before you even think about finding the nash equilibrium, there have to be more players that desire the same reward, right?
Yes, that's accurate.
Many people don't realize this but there is a popular trend that surfaced several years ago that is a metaphysical metaphor for the complex notion of what life, love, and power stand for and how we as individuals in pursuit of victories in our life both big and small will surely end up dissatisfied in the pursuit of such shallow endeavors. Players oftentimes will recite this mantra to their close companions to remind them "I lost the game"
Impressed by the quality!
I remember my lecturer teaching this in university and years passed and I forgot about it. I am putting it back in my arsenal like it never left.
Very nice, love the style!
In the Prisoners dilemma I don't think that both stay silent is the equilibrium, because if the other betray the outcome of that strategy would be worst than to betray always.... So the correct strategy is betray
Correct. The expected utility of betrayal is a one year prison sentence :(0 + 2)/2.
The expected utility of staying silent is a two years prison sentence: (1+3)/2
Since we have no influence on the decision of the other prisoner, we have to calculate the expected utility based only on our own decision. As prisoner A we have to add the pay-offs in each row in the pay-off matrix and divide it by the number of possible options that are not under our control. We can only choose between the two rows, the columns are not subject to our decision.
Cooperation would only make sense, if both prisoners can communicate and come to an agreement, which was explicitly stated as not possible.
Game theory steps simplified;
1. Betray/ Coop (fool me once, shame on you)
2. Betray/ Betray (fool me twice, shame on me)
3. Coop/ Coop (we're tired of fooling each other)
Thank you. Great video
Great video, I hope to see more in the future
Get yourself a "spit removal" plugin for your audio. Just a quick tip. It will do wonders for people like me who lose all concentration from hearing those kinds of sounds. I cannot even get myself to even watch the video.
2:19-2:28
There's a ton more examples. But this will do wonders for your audio! Sounds more professional and less rage inducing for people with Misophonia.
I will look into it. That's a very old video though. Check more recent ones.
@@metamorphosis_77 Oh, my bad I didn't check the date. And thank you for being humble about it.
I will def check out more of your content, because I really liked how you presented this one.
I just can't consentrate through mouth/spit noises. People probably think I am weird, but there's a lot of people like me out there.
Absolutely loved it!
Assumptions 4 and 5 are way too generous for most of the population. People are 99% irrational and rarely even have a faintest idea about what is in their personal self-interest.
I love game theory, because it's a theory. There are no hard and fast rules to any game. We make them up as we go along. No rules are ever made at the start of the game, for game theory relies on the evolution of rules. Game theory is one thing, then another, and then another. It is a series of constructs that are never planned. There are so many types of iterations that it resembles life.
4:45 There is no link between dominant strategies and optimality. The prisoners' dilemma just happens to be a game with both players having a dominant strategy that results in a suboptimal equilibrium. You can have suboptimal equilibria without dominant strategies as well. Dominant strategies is (part of) a solution method (something that generates a prediction) while optimality (ie Pareto optimality) is an equilibrium classification method.
Thank you for all the comments and the insight. All very accurate!
John wrote the book to figure out/solve Texas Hold’em. Nash is the father of push/fold equilibrium for heads-up no limit Hold’em. Both of these men focused on game theory to solve poker. Kinda a key piece of information to leave out…
I see a drawback in Game theory pertaining to principles 4 & 5. I cannot perceive with sufficient certainty what constitutes as “rational and self- interest” for myself, let alone what they represent to a third party.
Love this channel!
Glad I found this channel
really insightful video, thanks, I picked up the book from the father of game theory you mentioned. Cheers!
Nash needed one extra statement to complete the sequence: "the blonde gets offended and starts pursuing all of us instead"
Intriqued as I have never heard of game theory before. I look forward to exploring this subject. Thank you! This subject alone pointed me to your channel. I am now a new subscriber. 🤔
thank you. check also the remastered version of the video through the link in the description
Awesome stuff. How long did it take you to make this video.
Since it was my first video, and I had no experience in video editing, it took me a few days. However, I had the script ready from my essay and I believe this is the most difficult part; creating a great script that will lead to a well-articulated narrative.
En los primcipios de GT dices que los participantes tienen que interactuar. En el dilema del prisionero los prisioneros no tienen contacto el uno con el otro. Es decir, no interactuan.
That’s our best bet baby! Mutual agreements under love. Love you Calli! 😎
though it's about 3 years ago. this video is astonishing. explain the terms simply. I felt by understanding some fundamentals it would be beneficial to deal with different aspects of real-life situations
Excellent video 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Loved it!
I learn a lot, sir. Thanks.
edit: I have now noticed your remastered video. Cheers!
The scene from the Beautiful Mind is very inaccurate. The fact that competition and free market don't always yield the best results is known for about 30-40 years before Nash by the works of Schumpeter and Pigou. Also again you have hugely misunderstood what a Nash Equilibrium is. In the dating game depicted in the movie, each player has two strategies (blonde, not the blonde). Everyone playing (not the blonde) isn't a Nash Equilibrium since the players have incentive to change their strategy to (blonde) if other players keep their strategy constant.
Not really. The blonde showed interest on nash, and the propose comes from nash. so the others players have incentive to not play blonde if they wants to get laid.