Live data from Hacker News

Parrondo's Paradox

en.wikipedia.org

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: Parrondo's Paradox

#51

I often wondered whether some old-school poker players are actually unintentionally doing a variant of this. If you analyze the play of someone like Daniel Negranu from a game theoretic perspective it's clear that lots of the things he does are just bad (blind limps, check in the dark on the flop etc)[1] but taken together over more than one hand they create situations which are positive ev by widening the ranges the…

I mean isn’t that the whole point of poker? If you play strictly rationally, you become predictable and easy to beat, which is why machines are bad at it.

Re: Parrondo's Paradox

#52
It's not really a paradox. Once you start playing Game A + Game B, then it becomes Game C (a new game entirely) which resembles the original two games but now has a different rule for winning.

Re: Parrondo's Paradox

#53
post #51

I often wondered whether some old-school poker players are actually unintentionally doing a variant of this. If you analyze the play of someone like Daniel Negranu from a game theoretic perspective it's clear that lots of the things he does are just bad (blind limps, check in the dark on the flop etc)[1] but taken together over more than one hand they create situations which are positive ev by widening the ranges the…

I mean isn’t that the whole point of poker? If you play strictly rationally, you become predictable and easy to beat, which is why machines are bad at it.

Machines are very good at poker, and there is no way to exploit rational play if executed perfectly.
Post reply on HN