41–50 of 98 posts
The advantage of games is that you can combine unbiased evaluation, the opportunity of a short cycle and minimal cost (mostly time). Most superior mammals are learning by playing for a reason.
> minimal cost Unless we're talking about poker and you develop a gambling addiction.
The author makes a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications whilst falling for the mystique of poker as expressed in popular culture. We've all seen the movies where psychological tells ("deception") end up saving (or ruining) the day during a poker game. Unfortunately, in terms of winning strategies, this couldn't be further from how the game actually plays out today. Back when online poker exploded onto the scene…
It seems there's a lot of deception around how to play poker, so this is the real meta-game of poker: convincing others to play poker badly! (cue the often useless, recursive aspects of pop-culture game theory)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems there's a lot of deception around how to play poker, so this is the real meta-game of poker: convincing others to play poker badly! (cue the often useless, recursive aspects of pop-culture game theory)
I don't think this is true. It's a better strategy to keep bad players in the game by giving them real advice. To ensure they grow and have fun. But not so much advice that they surpass you. That's their own responsibility to seek out.
There are many, many life lessons I have drawn from my youth spent playing poker semi-professionally. Perhaps the most consistently useful one was that, as mentioned in the article, one's performance should not be assessed purely on the outcome. In poker, you can play perfectly and still lose. That is true in almost every field of life. Or, to give it more nuance, you can play exceptionally well and only win a little…
There is also an interesting life analogy that I like : During a tournament, an often underestimated skill is choosing your table (and thus your opponents).
The author makes a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications whilst falling for the mystique of poker as expressed in popular culture. We've all seen the movies where psychological tells ("deception") end up saving (or ruining) the day during a poker game. Unfortunately, in terms of winning strategies, this couldn't be further from how the game actually plays out today. Back when online poker exploded onto the scene…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several 'visual' tasks (medical scan, taking out trash, shields, shooting astroids) that allow's one to prove they are a ligitimate crewmember. Casting doubt on you as a 'self reporter'. Also things like the security camara's add even more dimensions to the game.
A high-risk, high-reward play I've seen is to kill someone, report the body, and claim you were on security camera and saw someone else do it. You can be caught out if it doesn't make sense for you to have been watching the cams, but while people keep a mental inventory of "who I saw doing what tasks," it often doesn't extend to the security room.
I'm not really sure why they chose Among Us as an alternative to poker. Sure, it has a little chance and unknown information, but among us is really more of a social study to see how easily people can be swayed into voting people off. In my experience if I talk confidently and get the first word in it's pretty easy to cast aside suspicion. In fact, one meta strategy is to kill someone, then report the body yourself a…
The self-reporting strategy is easily countered by first voting off the person you're accusing, and then immediately you if that person turns out to be a crew member.
The author makes a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications whilst falling for the mystique of poker as expressed in popular culture. We've all seen the movies where psychological tells ("deception") end up saving (or ruining) the day during a poker game. Unfortunately, in terms of winning strategies, this couldn't be further from how the game actually plays out today. Back when online poker exploded onto the scene…
The way you write is reminiscent of an Adam Curtis documentary and I think it's quite beautiful.
The author makes a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications whilst falling for the mystique of poker as expressed in popular culture. We've all seen the movies where psychological tells ("deception") end up saving (or ruining) the day during a poker game. Unfortunately, in terms of winning strategies, this couldn't be further from how the game actually plays out today. Back when online poker exploded onto the scene…
That chess is less robotic, is perhaps not obvious. A postmodern skepticism of “even in principle” thinking is part of it: who cares what’s possible in principle, when in practice that is inaccessible to me? The actual narrative is me versus this player, my blunders versus her blunders, and whoever blunders less wins. There is a Platonic Form of perfect play that has no blunders? It is discovered by computers? See, this is something I had to acclimate to in learning chess, because chess engines are available, they will rank your games and tell you that this opening is slightly better than that opening by a tenth of a pawn, and you have to like just throw them in the trash. It's like a standard of beauty that demands you have half a percent body fat and rippling abs and bench 300 easy. And instead you have the desire to be Interesting, rather than to be True.
I play some openings because they are silly, you chase my knight in a massive circle around the board and then I am totally undeveloped but you are questionably developed and it is not clear you are doing better. Gone are the days of memorized 20-deep trees of Sicilian openings where I got a careful half-pawn advantage in my theory and then turned out to blunder my queen and erase it all. That was, if you like, a half-life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A high-risk, high-reward play I've seen is to kill someone, report the body, and claim you were on security camera and saw someone else do it. You can be caught out if it doesn't make sense for you to have been watching the cams, but while people keep a mental inventory of "who I saw doing what tasks," it often doesn't extend to the security room.
Really only works for one round though, since you'll be Emergency voted out if imposter reveals are on.