Honestly, bring an actual rock and piece of paper to the game and always choose rock. Then, when your opponent chooses paper, demonstrate how easily a rock can punch a hole in a piece of paper.
When you try to be smart and tell your friend you gonna play paper to throw him off Now you confuse yourself And tie 15 straight Yeah definetly didnt happened
i just keep picking rock over and over again. people keep being like "surely he won't pick rock again" and go for scissors, but i keep picking rock. even if i lose. rock wins. rock always wins.
+Tohob Rock has metamorphic properties. You can always mulligan into scissors if your fingers are fast enough, and play it off like you have slow fingers.
Plus, if they play paper, you can punch them square in the jaw. Tell the responding police officer, they had paper, it SHOULD have protected them. Clearly, Rock beats paper AND scissors!
Felipe Michel there is a science behind this when humans play this game. There is literally Rock Paper Scissors tournaments, and the best players consistently win. If you have the same people winning every time it can’t be random. If someone consistently won the jackpot for the lottery it would be because he figured out how to beat it. Of course that doesn’t happen because the lottery is random.
Yup. This is when you go down the mindgame rabbit hole. The "what if" never ends. Thats why I try to play what I think is the most risky choice. I open up with paper. most people don't expect it. If I'm playing a person who is as tricky as me, I'll open up with scissors cause if they are strategic, they may choose paper.
David Vanderhoeven It's an unspoken rule that paper is the least played sign, even more so on the first turn. Goes like 45% Scissor 35% Rock 20% Paper. Scissor is the default choice for most people. Paper is the last resort.
Most casuals never open with paper, which means people who try to beat the casuals always open with rock to minimize their chance of losing on first round. People trying to next level casual beaters, open with paper.
This reminds me of a funny story. I had a coworker who I would play rock, paper, scissors with whenever we were trying to decide something between us. Who went on break first, who got the last drink in the fridge, ect. We would do this probably at least once a day, and for 6 years he always chose scissors with the intention that he should stick to his choice because eventually it will win. Coincidentally I also chose to stick with my strategy of playing rock and going on the longest winning streak ever in rock versus scissors.
If you ask them a question just before they throw, most people will reflexively throw rock. Also, if you throw rock and lose, your hand is already conveniently made into a fist.
Go for rock first. At the third time, reverse. Go for Win-Tie situations rather than Win-Lose or Tie-Lose. Avoid looking up RPS-101. Cheating through perception is always an option.
Used these tips against my 15 year old little sister and it was disastrous, we played for 10 rounds, I only won the first one. she never stopped laughing at me knowing that I told her I'd never lose at all. Thank you Numberphile. PS: My sister sucks at RPS.
ZiVazier Actually, often these are psychological wars and mind games playing about. Just because you know this "tactic" doesn't mean you will win. In games like RPS, you have to be smart. You really can't use the tip in the video on anyone, say that they heard the same tip that you just did? That means you have to find your own pattern. P.S. seeming to not have a pattern to confuse your opponent is also a skill. Haha!
i say that i'll do rock, then they think that i'll do something else like paper or scissors, so they do paper or rock, if they do paper, i lose and i say "at least i say the truth" if they do scissors and i win, i'll repeat that 1-2 times, then i'll say that i will do scissors, but i'll make paper, they will be confused and i'll continue like that 1-2 times more, then i'll switch tactics again. if you play 10 times, its guaranteed that you'll win at least 7 of them
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ~Sun Tzu, Art of War
Here’s a thing: so I’ve realized that often people find the need to NOT play any duplicates. If you go and play against someone who never duplicates, play whatever would lose to what they just played. This guarantees you either getting a point or having a draw. If you lose the first match, go backwards until you win, and then use this strategy. In the end, you’re opponent will only get points from either the beginning or any duplicates you play.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
***** He actually did solve it. "You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you" It's technically what he did.
Well that's why you clink glasses so that both splash into one another - either you both die or non of you. Combine that with the rule of the host drinking first to maximize your chances for this. Now, it one of you is allergic to something the other isn't, you shouldn't drink anything at all. Same goes if there is poisen the other could have used the anti-poisen on himself. ... You know what, I'll eat all by myself from now on.
Interestingly enough in world championships (yeah, I don't know either..) the best players randomly choose a series and then stupidly play it without thinking about it twice. Before the later stages though, they basically crawl into their opponents' minds and have almost psychic abilities to predict their next move (like the "I won - I use it again!" thing here that happens mostly unconsciously). But at a certain point it is too risky to rely on that and random beats the prediction. Their opponents can't read their unconscious mind if they stick to random.
So if they haven't seen this video, follow the strategy. If they have seen this video you should reverse the strategy, But if they know that you know they have seen the video, you should follow it. But if you know that they know that you know. they saw this video then you should reverse it. For some reason I feel a very strong need to shout "Inconceivable!"
Another thing I've noticed: People often pick Scissors on their first time, because it's the last thing you say before you make your decision. I'll even drive it in deeper by asking my opponent "do we go on scissors, like rock paper scissors, or do we go on shoot, like rock paper scissors shoot? How about on scissors?" So at this point they've heard the word scissors about 4 times. So picking rock first is a great foundation with this tactic, and then you can apply game theory for the proceeding matches.
we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know
"If you just've won, now, they're going to expect you to play the same thing again, right? Which means they're gonna play the thing that would beat the thing that you just played. So you need to play the thing that would beat the thing that would beat the thing that you just played" - Hannah 2015 words to live by.
This video and the paper it is based on is likely to create an observer's paradox effect, where by observing people's behaviour in r-p-s and by explaining the winning strategies it is changing the way people think about the game thus changing the winning strategies. The people who wrote the paper should write a follow-up paper with the same experimental design except having given all the participants a summary of their previous findings.
I recalled seeing this a few years back - I forgot a lot of the mechanics/math/theory except for the "play what they just played" part. So, I took that little info, and challenged a friend to RPS and beat them 8 times in a row. They were as stunned as I was. It doesn't work every time, but it is fairly consistent. In practice, or rather - from personal experience - I think simply picking one "rule/strategy" and following it every time is the way to go instead of trying to anticipate your opponents next move based off a large/changing dataset. AIso, found it VERY entertaining to watch my opponents essentially "playing against themselves" while I did a minimal amount of work/calculating.
Scissors cuts Paper, Paper covers Rock, Rock crushes Lizard, Lizard poisons Spock, Spock smashes Scissors, Scissors decapitates Lizard, Lizard eats Paper, Paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes Rock, (and as it always has) Rock crushes Scissors.
Would be interesting to see a study of how, if in any way, utilizing these techniques affects the opponents way of playing, and therefore the efficiency of the techniques
@@Vern01 well if they also know this strategy then it's likely they'd only be certain you also know it after 3 goes. So if you start off winning, then they choose what your last move was twice (and also lose twice) then by the 4th move they'd think they need to shift to playing what you just played, essentially reversing the rules, so you can one up them and play what wasn't played last round. After that just call it quits
When I was in mid school I had a similar strategy to win at odds and evens. I had the impression that when your opponent chooses odds or evens, they're more likely to play a number which matches their choice. In this way, you'd always be more likely to win if you played and odd number. This is probably just an impression, but I remember winning a lot at odds and evens when I used that strategy.
But what about if the person I'm playing against already knows this strategy? Doesn't that put me in trouble because he can make a strategy against this?
At 1:11, you claim that if you are playing against a computer who is chosing perfectly randomly (implying that he doesn't analyze the player strategy at all), the "best strategy" would be to pick each strategy with equal probability. But why would this mixed strategy be better than any pure strategy (say, playing always scissors)? Wouldn't both strategies have an equal winning chance (fort each turn 1/3 win, 1/3 draw, 1/3 lose)?
Correct. If your opponent chooses randomly, there is no dominant strategy. Dominant strategies only exist when there's bias. That is, any information you have about your opponent's bias gives you some advantage. Just don't let them know how you plan to use that information, or the same effect applies in reverse.
lol, at my school, everyone says "rock rock rock rock" and then they play paper, since the other person usually gets confused and then plays rock since you said "rock rock rock rock, though it only works the first time you do it
Subrata Talukdar It is same with poker or any game related with chance, clueless people screw up pros with randomness caused by lack of logic. Same with board games. There is little game named Saboteur in which some of the players are working for the target and some are saboteurs. Some people manage to screw up even by being not saboteurs, because lack of logic in their actions.
the goal of rock paper scissors (when there's nothing riding on it) for me now is to get as many draws in a row as possible. everybody wins and you can go back to that specific five minutes at age six when you thought you were magic/telepathic
But if you lose, they are going to think that you are going play the counter to what they just played. Therefore, you should play the thing that counters the thing that they think you are going to play. If I lose playing rock, I will naturally scissors. The opponent will anticipate that and play rock to stop me. I should then anticipate their rock and play paper. In other words, if everyone is thinking how they should, then there is no way that anyone would ever win because a decision would never be made. Yay circular reasoning!!!!
300 people for two hours... think of how many instances of "rock paper scissors" happened. I understand the need for lots of data, but that seems a bit over the top.
Formally stating the strategy makes it look very genius, but all it is, is just 2 level deep thinking. So an average person would crack your algorithm within 2-3 rounds, max, because this is a very intuitive algorithm.
Veesh, this strategy is a logical fallacy of generalization. The assumption that statistical data represents any particular individual. The strategy presented is sound according to game theory only for the second turn as, after that occurrence, you will have more information on the particular individual's tendencies, and should adjust according to that information.
You are making a fallacy fallacy, disregarding the general behavior of people which has been supported by statistical evidence is unreasonable and irrational. Someday, if you keep on studying philosophy, you will understand that fallacies don't disprove an argument and that fallacies are not equivalent with lies. For example, say you go to the doctor and he tells you something which you repeat to your friend. He will accuse you of making a blind loyalty fallacy because you trust someone in a position of authority. This does not make you wrong, and in fact you will probably be right if you trust the doctor. You see what I mean?
Frankotronify As someone who studied epistemology in undergrand, THANK YOU! I am kind of sick of the people who have the fallacy table always pulled up in a second tab, thinking they are doing the world some justice by "disproving" everyone's arguments.
You're right, you should definitely consider the new/individual information acquired each additional round and then adjust your strategy. But if your opponent plays similar to the average player (which is of course most likely), these 'new' informations won't be that valuable.
Frankotronify I don't recall saying this was a lie, only that the scope of the argument is limited, and based on a logical fallacy, ie: the assumption that a particular individual will be represented by group data. Playing this strategy beyond the second turn results in a unbalanced game state that will quickly revert to the standard random 1/3 nash equilbrium solution. In addition, by adding in the information presented in the video, either both players are aware of these tendencies, and will work to remove the flaw in their games and be aware of the other person doing so as well, resulting in standard R-P-S game play or we are playing a new game of imperfect and unbalanced information that only casually resembles R-P-S, though multiple iterations will still end up being the same game. Mr. Pants, Thank you for the condescension, but some of us can actually identify fallacious arguments without reference material. This is a mathematics channel, and the information being presented is expected to have a mathematically provable, and thus logically sound, base. Standard logical arguments can be rendered as equations, with fallacies resulting in an error. Calling attention to such a fallacy is not: "thinking they are doing the world some justice by "disproving" everyone's arguments. " though I would enjoy your oh-so-studied epistomological review of which common internet fallacy you are indulging in here : D
There’s something else called conditioning which I expect would be in effect here. The first things you win with are weighted more in your opponents mind than further things. If you get lucky and win with rock say 3/5 of the first rounds, your opponent will be wary of you playing rock after that, so more likely to pick paper. Thus, after getting lucky with something, you can switch to the thing that counters your opponents counter, and continue to beat them!
The average person, apparently. You obviously have to determine whether or not your opponent is an "average person" or not for these methods to work. You might need to think 2 or 3 steps forward if your opponent knows what they're doing.
Most humans go for scissors first, because they DO want to change the position of their fingers ("going commando" with rock doesn't feel right), but spreading all fingers for paper triggers the instinctive fear of leaving your defenses open. Scissors is the only left out, and I have indeed experienced a lot of people going scissors first.
+Denise A Wright here in australia we say 'scissors paper rock' instead of 'rock paper scissors', and yet majority of people go scissors first. Maybe it does have an impact but probably not a big one.
According to Earthling scientists (Kahnemann & al.), your famous "Intuition" is basically pattern recognition. When you use the "always go backwards" strategy against an Earthling, isn't there the danger that the Earthling's intuition learns inconsciently to recognize the "backwards" pattern and hence to predict your next move?
Haha yeah! Restricted RPS makes it so much more intense! I would've just waited the losers out and sell my cards but meh, if the main characters were really smart they wouldn't be in their situations anyways, so I like it better this way!
I was at a camp once where we played rock paper scissors with whoever we crossed paths with around the room. If you won, you'd stand up; if you lost, you'd kneel. Keep doing this with different people and if you won 3 in a row, you'd stop playing and stand by the side. I noticed 2 things: 1) I kept losing. I might win one but then I'd lose the next one. 2) Everyone (including me) kept picking rock, sometimes scissors but almost never paper. So I just started using paper instead and suddenly started winning
What I find to be really confusing the opponent is when it gets tie, I play the same thing again while they usually go for the thing that will beat what we both just played which is always being beat by the the thing we get tie on the first place. When a machine picks it on random the distribution is uniform while humans can skew the distribution by picking weird stuff like repeating the same choice three times in a row. Where for a random variable the chance for this to happen would be 1/27, in a human choice picking it within the first 10 rounds is not that much unlikely and that changes the chance to ~30% (if we derive the chance out of the frequency distribution of the human choice).
*OKAY* ! Now Explain _Sheldon Cooper's_ *Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock* Scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, rock crushes lizard, lizard poisons Spock, Spock smashes scissors, scissors decapitates lizard, lizard eats paper, paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes rock, and as it always has, rock crushes scissors!
Meh, i'd be happy if they would've went a bit more in-depth in the REGULAR r-p-s... No simulations, no statistics, no pre-thought strategy (that wouldn't depend on the previous round). I was really expecting a bit more. :-|
This entire episode was explained in 3 minutes by Sora from No Game, No Life - an anime about a world based around gaming. Its moreso complex rational thinking than a 'scientific finding'. If the creator/director of an animated show can think like this, then scientists call it science, then people's views on science have certainly wavered over the years. Lol.
Don't want to sound like a douche but i came up with this tactic when i was a kid to exploit it against my friends so it's not that complex. The difference is that this study got it rationalised and backed it up with actual data.
Why did the person at 1:14 have two left hands? That should have changed the experiment because of the psychological scarring on the players of that game.
My strategy, which works almost all the time, is to play the weakness of what I just played no matter what, and it seems that this is pretty close to that strategy
You're a very simple minded person. Try focusing on easily understood things that help you in your every day life. Like how to ride a bike or when to take the pizza out of the oven (often you find the time on the packaging, just use a clock to make it easier for you. Counting is not an accurate measurement of time). Or this video, which is actually very very simple.
I have been using these methods for a while and found them to be quite useful, but its also important to profile you're opponent and figure out how far they are likely to think ahead-- you've always got to be one step further.
Thank you, I thought i was invincible after watching this. But I lost my earphones and TV remote to my sister . And i am also going through humiliation.😥
I always play rock so someone can hold my hand for a bit 😢
📄
Feel for you bruv
youre the real winner
Down horrendous
Damn dude ... you made my day.
Losing as paper or scissors seems very painful, I'll just play rock over and over again.
That's what Bart Simpson did one time...
paper feels weak. Even scissors is more interesting since it's got a blade
meta abuser
Honestly, bring an actual rock and piece of paper to the game and always choose rock. Then, when your opponent chooses paper, demonstrate how easily a rock can punch a hole in a piece of paper.
Can't wait for Roshambo Horizons where they will power creep rock and then power creep paper the year after in the name of "balance".
This why my friend and I tied 7 times straights and started thinking 5 steps a head and almost died from overthinking lol
Princess bride logic I see 😂
@ambassador yeah I used way too much brain power for that game
Just a regular chess player moment
wow you must be very predictable lol
When you try to be smart and tell your friend you gonna play paper to throw him off
Now you confuse yourself
And tie 15 straight
Yeah definetly didnt happened
i just keep picking rock over and over again. people keep being like "surely he won't pick rock again" and go for scissors, but i keep picking rock. even if i lose. rock wins. rock always wins.
+Tohob #TeamRock
+Tohob Rock has metamorphic properties. You can always mulligan into scissors if your fingers are fast enough, and play it off like you have slow fingers.
I always go paper first because most of people go rock first.
#TeamLizard
Plus, if they play paper, you can punch them square in the jaw. Tell the responding police officer, they had paper, it SHOULD have protected them. Clearly, Rock beats paper AND scissors!
The fingers being bent and broken by the rock just makes me uncomfortable.
Imagine you were playing rock paper scissors with your best friend and they just smash your fingers to pieces
Semm
@@ZeboMobile bold of you to assume I have friends
How about the fingers being snipped off
Then Terry Gilliam animations would terrify you
Plot twist: Your opponent has also seen this video.
Plot twist: there is no science about this. Its completely random and it depends only on luck/bad luck.
Felipe Michel there is a science behind this when humans play this game. There is literally Rock Paper Scissors tournaments, and the best players consistently win. If you have the same people winning every time it can’t be random. If someone consistently won the jackpot for the lottery it would be because he figured out how to beat it. Of course that doesn’t happen because the lottery is random.
Given the 3M views, I’d say that’s likely :)
Lesson being, allways make the same play: On three, kick the opponent in the shin and run.
Just pick one forever and eventually you'll have a 33% wi rate at least.
it becomes really weird when both people know this
Yup. This is when you go down the mindgame rabbit hole. The "what if" never ends. Thats why I try to play what I think is the most risky choice. I open up with paper. most people don't expect it. If I'm playing a person who is as tricky as me, I'll open up with scissors cause if they are strategic, they may choose paper.
it will become into a cycle
How on earth would picking paper at first be unexpected? There's only 3 choices.
David Vanderhoeven It's an unspoken rule that paper is the least played sign, even more so on the first turn. Goes like 45% Scissor 35% Rock 20% Paper. Scissor is the default choice for most people. Paper is the last resort.
Most casuals never open with paper, which means people who try to beat the casuals always open with rock to minimize their chance of losing on first round. People trying to next level casual beaters, open with paper.
I love how the animation of the kids shows them getting progressively more sad
thanks, i missed it
hahaha why
They're in China, so yeah
@@memelissa7169 it's not that deep
@@FEScarf The real reason they're sad is you haven't uploaded the next letter yet
This reminds me of a funny story. I had a coworker who I would play rock, paper, scissors with whenever we were trying to decide something between us. Who went on break first, who got the last drink in the fridge, ect. We would do this probably at least once a day, and for 6 years he always chose scissors with the intention that he should stick to his choice because eventually it will win. Coincidentally I also chose to stick with my strategy of playing rock and going on the longest winning streak ever in rock versus scissors.
6 years?! Wow, that person and job must be very memorable for you. This also sounds like it would be an episode of The Office!
Mayne he's getting used to you picking rock so one day he can wager something HUGE, and then beat you with paper.
@@amerikagaijin the long con
@@amerikagaijin But imagine choosing paper, attempting to outsmart him when that time finally comes only to lose against... fricking scissors.
@@ivocorte1580 lol! That would be great!
The rock on Hannah's finger defeats us all.
MrDeeb8 true hahaha
MrDeeb8 underrated comment
Punchline! Nailed it! xD
Wtf 😥😖
Why would you take that away from me so abruptly?
If you ask them a question just before they throw, most people will reflexively throw rock. Also, if you throw rock and lose, your hand is already conveniently made into a fist.
I always thought it produced scissors. And it always does so...
Omar Goodman I got it, in like 5 seconds
But you're also usually accustomed to saying rock paper and scissors last so you might reflexively throw in a scissor first
+Longnall Sapuel Everytime i played we said scissors, paper, rock
Ha
"Rock flies right through paper!"
"Then what beats rock?"
"Nothing beats rock!"
Except METAL
Classical does:)
Spock beats Rock. ;-) (Well, technically it's "vaporizes" but still.)
Scissors cuts a hole in the paper at the last second…Scissors win
@@irrelevant_noob I forget the justification for a lizard beating spock
TL;DW:
If you lose, play what wasn't played
If you win, play what they just played
Go for rock first.
At the third time, reverse.
Go for Win-Tie situations rather than Win-Lose or Tie-Lose.
Avoid looking up RPS-101.
Cheating through perception is always an option.
In other words, go R, S, P, R, S, P, R, S etc. forever without even paying attention to what happened last round
No, go R, E, S, P, E, C, T.
@@unic0de-yvr seeing as rock is the most popular, I go P,R,S
JBehnen is this a new version of Sheldon’s Rock Paper Scissors lizard Spock?
Used these tips against my 15 year old little sister and it was disastrous, we played for 10 rounds, I only won the first one. she never stopped laughing at me knowing that I told her I'd never lose at all. Thank you Numberphile.
PS: My sister sucks at RPS.
ZiVazier Actually, often these are psychological wars and mind games playing about. Just because you know this "tactic" doesn't mean you will win. In games like RPS, you have to be smart. You really can't use the tip in the video on anyone, say that they heard the same tip that you just did? That means you have to find your own pattern.
P.S. seeming to not have a pattern to confuse your opponent is also a skill. Haha!
i say that i'll do rock, then they think that i'll do something else like paper or scissors, so they do paper or rock, if they do paper, i lose and i say "at least i say the truth" if they do scissors and i win, i'll repeat that 1-2 times, then i'll say that i will do scissors, but i'll make paper, they will be confused and i'll continue like that 1-2 times more, then i'll switch tactics again. if you play 10 times, its guaranteed that you'll win at least 7 of them
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
~Sun Tzu, Art of War
Here’s a thing: so I’ve realized that often people find the need to NOT play any duplicates. If you go and play against someone who never duplicates, play whatever would lose to what they just played. This guarantees you either getting a point or having a draw. If you lose the first match, go backwards until you win, and then use this strategy. In the end, you’re opponent will only get points from either the beginning or any duplicates you play.
i lost 3 grand with this strategy. Thank you
You're a moron.
@@petenjs3500 Calm down, genius
@@JorgeRodriguez-xx8vx Calm down, moron.
LOLLLL
@@petenjs3500 r/woooosh
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
They were both poisoned.
***** He actually did solve it. "You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you"
It's technically what he did.
Well that's why you clink glasses so that both splash into one another - either you both die or non of you. Combine that with the rule of the host drinking first to maximize your chances for this.
Now, it one of you is allergic to something the other isn't, you shouldn't drink anything at all. Same goes if there is poisen the other could have used the anti-poisen on himself.
...
You know what, I'll eat all by myself from now on.
This might be the best comment I've ever read.
This has to become a copypasta.
Interestingly enough in world championships (yeah, I don't know either..) the best players randomly choose a series and then stupidly play it without thinking about it twice. Before the later stages though, they basically crawl into their opponents' minds and have almost psychic abilities to predict their next move (like the "I won - I use it again!" thing here that happens mostly unconsciously). But at a certain point it is too risky to rely on that and random beats the prediction. Their opponents can't read their unconscious mind if they stick to random.
What's the trophy look like?
@@christopherwellman2364maybe you get ticket to rock concert, diploma and scissors just for fun
@@Donbros idk but I like that idea
@@christopherwellman2364depends on how you won the final round /j
So if they haven't seen this video, follow the strategy. If they have seen this video you should reverse the strategy, But if they know that you know they have seen the video, you should follow it. But if you know that they know that you know. they saw this video then you should reverse it.
For some reason I feel a very strong need to shout "Inconceivable!"
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
"If you lose, that means the other person has won, right?"
nope its causes a paradox which may result in unraveling the fabric of time space
Not really, maybe another person won and the one in front of you is a illusion. You can't know...
So? Pretty much the same when you try to prove in geometry. like the reflexive property .
Geeky Vors n
Why did You write this?
Another thing I've noticed: People often pick Scissors on their first time, because it's the last thing you say before you make your decision. I'll even drive it in deeper by asking my opponent "do we go on scissors, like rock paper scissors, or do we go on shoot, like rock paper scissors shoot? How about on scissors?" So at this point they've heard the word scissors about 4 times. So picking rock first is a great foundation with this tactic, and then you can apply game theory for the proceeding matches.
Actually i read the study and its says men will play rock 90 percent of the time as their opener.
This is untrue because most people play rock on their first throw.
Will Smith and Margot Robbie made a movie about that assumption
@@siderealbeast Wait,
The diversion movie thing was about Rock Paper Scissors?
Why'd nobody tell me that?
In Germany we go "Scissors Rock Paper", so it'd be interesting to see if there was any statistical difference there
I've already been using this strategy for years. 60% of the time, it works every time.
"60%of the time, it works every time"... 😂😂😂😂
Ah, a portal reference
@@sumans7620 is it? I thought it was a Ron Burgundy reference...
@@sumans7620 no
So it doesn't work everytime😭
If Hannah did every video, I’d be a math whiz by now!
😂
Someone had to say it
Man of culture.
I'd be a mess.
Try school
I am no one to be trifled with. I have spent the past few years building up an immunity to rock.
Inconceivable!
But they don't know we know they know we know they know!
THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH
I know!
we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they know
All that work and zero recognition... was it worth it?
J Lupus who are you talking to
1:20, he had a left right hand...
H O L Y S H I T
Can't stop laughing. Don't know why
Paradigm shift
DAMN🤣🤣🤣
Jojo reference?
"If you just've won, now, they're going to expect you to play the same thing again, right? Which means they're gonna play the thing that would beat the thing that you just played. So you need to play the thing that would beat the thing that would beat the thing that you just played" - Hannah 2015
words to live by.
the most obvious common sense to ever be common
This video and the paper it is based on is likely to create an observer's paradox effect, where by observing people's behaviour in r-p-s and by explaining the winning strategies it is changing the way people think about the game thus changing the winning strategies. The people who wrote the paper should write a follow-up paper with the same experimental design except having given all the participants a summary of their previous findings.
elliest 55 now that would be next level
What about Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock?
***** check the extra footage at Numberphile2
Numberphile Haha, I knew you would include it somewhere :)
Numberphile
what about rock paper scissors lizard spock spiderman batman wizard glock?
What about RPS 101?
***** I have a 27 way version. it has dragon and volcano and 22 other great things. or maybe its 21 way and there are 16 other things
I recalled seeing this a few years back - I forgot a lot of the mechanics/math/theory except for the "play what they just played" part. So, I took that little info, and challenged a friend to RPS and beat them 8 times in a row. They were as stunned as I was. It doesn't work every time, but it is fairly consistent.
In practice, or rather - from personal experience - I think simply picking one "rule/strategy" and following it every time is the way to go instead of trying to anticipate your opponents next move based off a large/changing dataset.
AIso, found it VERY entertaining to watch my opponents essentially "playing against themselves" while I did a minimal amount of work/calculating.
Scissors cuts Paper, Paper covers Rock, Rock crushes Lizard, Lizard poisons Spock, Spock smashes Scissors, Scissors decapitates Lizard, Lizard eats Paper, Paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes Rock, (and as it always has) Rock crushes Scissors.
Kodlaken I watched this video to see if this came up in the comments.
Thank you Dr Cooper
@@buybymail i love girls handwriting 1:54
I am sorry can you please repeat again?😂
Now that's a game I can behind.
Would be interesting to see a study of how, if in any way, utilizing these techniques affects the opponents way of playing, and therefore the efficiency of the techniques
That’s what I was thinking. If they figure out your strategy, it’s useless
@@Vern01 well if they also know this strategy then it's likely they'd only be certain you also know it after 3 goes. So if you start off winning, then they choose what your last move was twice (and also lose twice) then by the 4th move they'd think they need to shift to playing what you just played, essentially reversing the rules, so you can one up them and play what wasn't played last round. After that just call it quits
When I was in mid school I had a similar strategy to win at odds and evens. I had the impression that when your opponent chooses odds or evens, they're more likely to play a number which matches their choice. In this way, you'd always be more likely to win if you played and odd number. This is probably just an impression, but I remember winning a lot at odds and evens when I used that strategy.
Glad people are providing useful comments as to which visitor they were and when their reply was placed. Really helpful, thanks!
Cant beat me if you don't have hands
Chickenking17 Can't win if you have no one to play with
Savage lol
Life hacks.
@@quasquaswex4430 That hurts a lot
Oh no
Her handwriting is so beautiful. Mine looks like a 3 year old's handwriting lmao.
My God she's beautiful.
That struck me too...so i looked in coments to see how long it took someone else to say it
Now go out and gerrer......😂😂
I want this girl's voice for my Siri.
Dr Fry does have the most mellifluous voice.
I still remember that day when my right hand won against my left hand.
That one win really changed my life.
Very handy.
My left one won
But what about if the person I'm playing against already knows this strategy? Doesn't that put me in trouble because he can make a strategy against this?
Hazem Hassan but what if you know that they know that you know!?
Numberphile Illuminati comfirmed!
Numberphile But what if they know that?
Numberphile Yes, RPS is rooted in complex game psychology. /sarcasm
Numberphile Then you know that they know that you know that they know that you know!
At 1:11, you claim that if you are playing against a computer who is chosing perfectly randomly (implying that he doesn't analyze the player strategy at all), the "best strategy" would be to pick each strategy with equal probability.
But why would this mixed strategy be better than any pure strategy (say, playing always scissors)? Wouldn't both strategies have an equal winning chance (fort each turn 1/3 win, 1/3 draw, 1/3 lose)?
I think what they meant was you cant have any advantage with any strategy against a computer... do whatever you want.
If you picked just one hand and kept on playing it, you'd end up winning 1/3 of the times.
Hey Zogg nice to see you!
Same (kind of) question as above , do you plan to post a new episode soon?
Depends how narrow you define "soon".
Correct. If your opponent chooses randomly, there is no dominant strategy. Dominant strategies only exist when there's bias. That is, any information you have about your opponent's bias gives you some advantage. Just don't let them know how you plan to use that information, or the same effect applies in reverse.
Went to play with my lil brother, feeling confident. Lost 8times in a row. Now I am watching it again.
Every time they write on that paper with those markers, my body shivers.
Maybe ASMR?
I h8 tht sound
lol, at my school, everyone says "rock rock rock rock" and then they play paper, since the other person usually gets confused and then plays rock since you said "rock rock rock rock, though it only works the first time you do it
I remember wining something like 3 in a row against someone using a strategy similar to this. It made him very predictable.
"Patrick, how come you always choose paper?"
Legit strats
I'm distracted by her beauty and great handwriting and good humour.
More of her, please.
edit: oh, oh, and her voice.
it took considerable restraint to avoid making a totally inappropriate comment on this video
I'm just falling in love every time. Does this count as inappropriate?
This comment could actually still be considered totally inappropriate, for what it's worth
Amazing & amazingly beautiful
you lose by asking
😩
Can you please now delete this video so that I have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Thank you :)
Ahaahhahahahhahahaahhahaahaahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahah
I laughed way too hard at this! XD
Yash Agarwal loser
+Eazy that was unnecessarily mean. There's no need for name-calling when comments are made in jest... especially not on a numberphile video.
I think your real advantage on the rest of humanity is that you're watching math videos on UA-cam.
*laughs in foreign language*
That's just a theory. A GAME THEORY!
bom bom bom
Kairos?
but there's a catch to this
none of these tactics are going to work when you play with dumb people
i know how it feels when they just win somehow
thats right :D
^feel you bro
haha llol
BKrandy the chinese I guess
Subrata Talukdar It is same with poker or any game related with chance, clueless people screw up pros with randomness caused by lack of logic. Same with board games. There is little game named Saboteur in which some of the players are working for the target and some are saboteurs. Some people manage to screw up even by being not saboteurs, because lack of logic in their actions.
the goal of rock paper scissors (when there's nothing riding on it) for me now is to get as many draws in a row as possible. everybody wins and you can go back to that specific five minutes at age six when you thought you were magic/telepathic
But if you lose, they are going to think that you are going play the counter to what they just played. Therefore, you should play the thing that counters the thing that they think you are going to play. If I lose playing rock, I will naturally scissors. The opponent will anticipate that and play rock to stop me. I should then anticipate their rock and play paper. In other words, if everyone is thinking how they should, then there is no way that anyone would ever win because a decision would never be made. Yay circular reasoning!!!!
The problem is guessing where the other person stops,
Most of the time I lose I don't change my "item", because I think they think I am going to change it.
"Congratulations, you just played yourself."
numberphile has 3.14 million subs...
They should have made an special video
yeah....... they lost 1 after this video...
Did they really have to do a 300 person experiment to find that out? I've been doing that since I was like 10
No, they did it to have statistical evidence.
***** when it comes to rock-paper-scissor, yes
Well you probably play differently as you age I imagine...
300 people for two hours... think of how many instances of "rock paper scissors" happened. I understand the need for lots of data, but that seems a bit over the top.
***** 54,000 instances. There are two students per round.
I’m a simple guy. I see Hannah Fry and i click.
Clearly
That scarlet Johansson mouth boyyyy, is that the reason why??
Same here brotha
aahhh..... now i realize where the term simp is derived from....
@@LEO-mb9dl stfu simp police
That handwriting tho 😍
I wouldn't have been surprised if the animation and artwork had been made by Terry Gilliam.
Definitely getting a Gilliam vibe
"Which is the equivalent of saying you need to play what they just played."
Actually lol'ed!
I'd would be interesting to see if someone who actually used this strategy had an advantage over someone who has never heard of it.
Formally stating the strategy makes it look very genius, but all it is, is just 2 level deep thinking. So an average person would crack your algorithm within 2-3 rounds, max, because this is a very intuitive algorithm.
SHE SAID GAME THEORY!
but that's just a theory... a GAME THEORY!
The Game Theorists They calling you out with rock paper scissors.
mitchelnext1 Thanks for watching!
***** tis mere banter my friend
mitchelnext1 Damn those game theory-ist and there materialistic manta!
Veesh, this strategy is a logical fallacy of generalization. The assumption that statistical data represents any particular individual. The strategy presented is sound according to game theory only for the second turn as, after that occurrence, you will have more information on the particular individual's tendencies, and should adjust according to that information.
*****
Which is essentially what I said above : D
You are making a fallacy fallacy, disregarding the general behavior of people which has been supported by statistical evidence is unreasonable and irrational. Someday, if you keep on studying philosophy, you will understand that fallacies don't disprove an argument and that fallacies are not equivalent with lies. For example, say you go to the doctor and he tells you something which you repeat to your friend. He will accuse you of making a blind loyalty fallacy because you trust someone in a position of authority. This does not make you wrong, and in fact you will probably be right if you trust the doctor. You see what I mean?
Frankotronify As someone who studied epistemology in undergrand, THANK YOU! I am kind of sick of the people who have the fallacy table always pulled up in a second tab, thinking they are doing the world some justice by "disproving" everyone's arguments.
You're right, you should definitely consider the new/individual information acquired each additional round and then adjust your strategy.
But if your opponent plays similar to the average player (which is of course most likely), these 'new' informations won't be that valuable.
Frankotronify I don't recall saying this was a lie, only that the scope of the argument is limited, and based on a logical fallacy, ie: the assumption that a particular individual will be represented by group data.
Playing this strategy beyond the second turn results in a unbalanced game state that will quickly revert to the standard random 1/3 nash equilbrium solution. In addition, by adding in the information presented in the video, either both players are aware of these tendencies, and will work to remove the flaw in their games and be aware of the other person doing so as well, resulting in standard R-P-S game play or we are playing a new game of imperfect and unbalanced information that only casually resembles R-P-S, though multiple iterations will still end up being the same game.
Mr. Pants,
Thank you for the condescension, but some of us can actually identify fallacious arguments without reference material. This is a mathematics channel, and the information being presented is expected to have a mathematically provable, and thus logically sound, base. Standard logical arguments can be rendered as equations, with fallacies resulting in an error. Calling attention to such a fallacy is not:
"thinking they are doing the world some justice by "disproving" everyone's arguments. "
though I would enjoy your oh-so-studied epistomological review of which common internet fallacy you are indulging in here : D
There’s something else called conditioning which I expect would be in effect here.
The first things you win with are weighted more in your opponents mind than further things.
If you get lucky and win with rock say 3/5 of the first rounds, your opponent will be wary of you playing rock after that, so more likely to pick paper. Thus, after getting lucky with something, you can switch to the thing that counters your opponents counter, and continue to beat them!
but then its a theory, A GAME THEORY
+Geeky Vors Just like gravity!
+norb4152 Exactly
+norb4152 Exactly
+norb4152 Exactly
+norb4152 Gravity is a force, not a theory :P. I'd love to see a relativistic version of Game Theory.
This makes no sense at all. If I win with Rock, I won't play Rock again. Who does that?
***** 360 no scope?
Tilen Medved ninja defuse
Tilen Medved 2 pi no scope
The average person, apparently. You obviously have to determine whether or not your opponent is an "average person" or not for these methods to work. You might need to think 2 or 3 steps forward if your opponent knows what they're doing.
if you think about it, maybe you won't do it, but if you're not playing "with a strategy" and just for fun, you might do it without knowing it
Hannah Fry!! One of my favourite mathematicians ❤️
This is so wrong, the chinese students wouldn't have those eyes
Bruh
Bliss Woven 20 people think I did, so, speak for yourself
Nah, I'll speak for you
No chill detected
It also probably helps if you try to guess the person's first pick based on their personality.
Most humans go for scissors first, because they DO want to change the position of their fingers ("going commando" with rock doesn't feel right), but spreading all fingers for paper triggers the instinctive fear of leaving your defenses open.
Scissors is the only left out, and I have indeed experienced a lot of people going scissors first.
Fons the Magnificient I think people usually pick scissors because we say the word scissors as we choose.
+Denise A Wright here in australia we say 'scissors paper rock' instead of 'rock paper scissors', and yet majority of people go scissors first. Maybe it does have an impact but probably not a big one.
Here in case i end up on a boat in a life or death game of Rock Paper Scissors with like 1000 other passengerS
What would be interesting to know, is if a player is playing with this strategy, how quickly does the other player adapt to the strategy.
Pretty quickly...I mean it's obvious after few plays
According to Earthling scientists (Kahnemann & al.), your famous "Intuition" is basically pattern recognition. When you use the "always go backwards" strategy against an Earthling, isn't there the danger that the Earthling's intuition learns inconsciently to recognize the "backwards" pattern and hence to predict your next move?
Plz Zogg make a episode
This whole video gives "Let's just say I have a friend who knows a guy who knows another guy" vibes
She is simply dreamy... =.=
simp
this video remembered me the anime "Kaiji". the strategies there was amazing!
Haha yeah!
Restricted RPS makes it so much more intense!
I would've just waited the losers out and sell my cards but meh, if the main characters were really smart they wouldn't be in their situations anyways, so I like it better this way!
I was delighted with this video, I saw it more than 3 times. When I was going to see it the fourth time I realized that it was muted.
Good ole rock, nothing beats that
Poor, predictable Raphael deLaghetto
Ha,ha! That cracks me up!!
wow, she's gorgeous :P
I was at a camp once where we played rock paper scissors with whoever we crossed paths with around the room. If you won, you'd stand up; if you lost, you'd kneel. Keep doing this with different people and if you won 3 in a row, you'd stop playing and stand by the side. I noticed 2 things: 1) I kept losing. I might win one but then I'd lose the next one. 2) Everyone (including me) kept picking rock, sometimes scissors but almost never paper. So I just started using paper instead and suddenly started winning
4:21, that's just a theory, a GAME theory!
pika peepa
damn i'm late xD
MatPat ruined the name of that field of study for the whole internet...
man you beat me
Spreading the word of MatPat's videos
Can you do an analysis of rock paper scissors spock lizard?
or RPS-101, that'd be cool.
What I find to be really confusing the opponent is when it gets tie, I play the same thing again while they usually go for the thing that will beat what we both just played which is always being beat by the the thing we get tie on the first place. When a machine picks it on random the distribution is uniform while humans can skew the distribution by picking weird stuff like repeating the same choice three times in a row. Where for a random variable the chance for this to happen would be 1/27, in a human choice picking it within the first 10 rounds is not that much unlikely and that changes the chance to ~30% (if we derive the chance out of the frequency distribution of the human choice).
that makes no sense. if you played rock so then they play paper how does rock beat paper
You forgot the most important strategy of all: Always go rock!
*OKAY* ! Now Explain _Sheldon Cooper's_ *Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock*
Scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, rock crushes lizard, lizard poisons Spock, Spock smashes scissors, scissors decapitates lizard, lizard eats paper, paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes rock, and as it always has, rock crushes scissors!
Meh, i'd be happy if they would've went a bit more in-depth in the REGULAR r-p-s... No simulations, no statistics, no pre-thought strategy (that wouldn't depend on the previous round). I was really expecting a bit more. :-|
This video is a paradox, the more people watch the video, the more it gets useless
Wow, this is Numberphile's most viewed video since the one about the sum of natural numbers adding up to −1/12!
The Real Flenuan The tremendous red haired nerdy gurl helps the eye relax quite a bit... So, yeah!
This entire episode was explained in 3 minutes by Sora from No Game, No Life - an anime about a world based around gaming. Its moreso complex rational thinking than a 'scientific finding'. If the creator/director of an animated show can think like this, then scientists call it science, then people's views on science have certainly wavered over the years. Lol.
Too bad the show creator is trapped in plagiarism issues. The show is great. The Shiritori game with Jibril was the best anime experience I ever had.
Science is just empiricism.
Berzerius "Lithosphere!"
Everything after was pure genius. Actually, everything was genius after he said "atom bomb".
Don't want to sound like a douche but i came up with this tactic when i was a kid to exploit it against my friends so it's not that complex.
The difference is that this study got it rationalised and backed it up with actual data.
Please don't reference anime that just involve the protagonist always coming out on top. Such anime are usually drab... as was NGNL
I've seen this video 18 times. I dont like RPS, I just love looking at you. So beautiful
Why did the person at 1:14 have two left hands? That should have changed the experiment because of the psychological scarring on the players of that game.
0:33 haha, I forgot about that whole child labour experiment thing in the paper!
My strategy, which works almost all the time, is to play the weakness of what I just played no matter what, and it seems that this is pretty close to that strategy
How I'm I supposed to focus?
Pekka ’O Erilainen ikr
You're a very simple minded person. Try focusing on easily understood things that help you in your every day life. Like how to ride a bike or when to take the pizza out of the oven (often you find the time on the packaging, just use a clock to make it easier for you. Counting is not an accurate measurement of time).
Or this video, which is actually very very simple.
@@Crymble sorry I didn’t have the attention span to read your whole comment, can you say it again but a bit shorter.
@@AsheeBashee :)
@@Crymble :)
Hide and seek is one game in which we have excelled even higher than we have in technology. Everyone becomes perfect logicians
I have been using these methods for a while and found them to be quite useful, but its also important to profile you're opponent and figure out how far they are likely to think ahead-- you've always got to be one step further.
Rock paper scissors are for babies
Quartz Parchment Shears are for the _intellectuals_
Thank you,
I thought i was invincible after watching this.
But
I lost my earphones and TV remote to my sister .
And i am also going through humiliation.😥
lol
I find letting your opponent go first is the best strategy.
Y’all do this, I am gonna do fire, which (as Joey said) beats everything!
Water balloon
"It's rooted in Game Theory"
Not another Undertale one!
My strategy that tends to work for me a majority of the time is repeating "I am going to throw rock" aloud, then throwing rock (for example)