Babenet Scams....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Feb 11 2003, 04:12 PM
The litmus test on the "fairness" of these billing procedures is if you can hold the merchant account and not blow up the bank with chargebacks...I think people in the know are familiar with the answer to this question...

Where is Colin when we need him?

Colin, please explain the "The Nash Equilibrium" better than I can...

Here is an example -


The Prisoner's Dilemma

In Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22, allied victory in World War II is a foregone conclusion, and Yossarian does not want to be among the last ones to die. His commanding officer points out, "But suppose everyone on our side felt that way?" Yossarian replies, "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

Every general reader has heard of the prisoner's dilemma. The police interrogate two suspects separately, and suggest to each that he or she should fink on the other and turn state's evidence. "If the other does not fink, then you can cut a good deal for yourself by giving evidence against the other; if the other finks and you hold out, the court will treat you especially harshly. Thus no matter what the other does, it is better for you to fink than not to fink -- finking is your uniformly best or 'dominant' strategy." This is the case whether the two are actually guilty, as in some episodes of NYPD Blue, or innocent, as in the film LA Confidential. Of course, when both fink, they both fare worse than they would have if both had held out; but that outcome, though jointly desirable for them, collapses in the face of their separate temptations to fink.

Yossarian's dilemma is just a multi-person version of this. His death is not going to make any significant difference to the prospects of victory, and he is personally better off alive than dead. So avoiding death is his dominant strategy.

In essence...look out for numero uno. The Nash Equilibrium forces people to consider what other people are THINKING before making their choices also...ie, thinking about thinking...and if you are in an industry where you think numerous people are thinking we're on a runaway train towards the abyss, do you hop on the train to get what you can...or do you stand on the tracks watching as it runs you over...

I dunno....I just wonder how many people have saved for a rainy day..cuz it's starting to sprinkle...

Jim,

I have also thought of game theory and it's application to ethical decisions adult companies contemplate. I should probably keep my conclusions to myself. The risk is too high.

The deal on game theory for anyone interested. Game theory is just what it sounds like. The
theory of how games are played. Most of the classical interest in game theory has revolved
around two party zero sum games.

* Two party zero sum games have two participants

* Zero sum means that the sum of the reward or penalties is always constant (years in
prison, money, whatever). Example, two people play a game and $100 is divided between them depending on how they play the game.

The "Nash Equilibrium" occurs when both parties have made a decision such that if either of
them changes their strategy and the other doesn't, they end up worse off than they
were before. It was authored by John Nash, the mathematician from the movie "A Beautiful Mind".

Game theory has been used to analyze political strategies such as whether one should defect
from a treaty or uphold it. Is it better to make an arms agreement with a rival nation and illegally break it or hold to it hoping the other nation does too?

Game theory was used during World War II in the consideration of Japanese bombing targets. Should one always bomb the best targets or will that lead to increased defense of those targets? I believe the answer was a mixed strategy. Sometimes you bomb the best ones, sometimes not. Often in life, according to game theory, the best answer is a mixed strategy.

In football for example, passing attempts yield more yards than rushing attempts however a mixed strategy is usually better and one reason is that if the defense knows you will pass every down, that nice high yards per pass attempt will head straight down. There are exceptions of course.

It's really interesting to consider the glut of free content with game theory in mind. Is it
worth it for TGP owners to saturate the market in order to make meager profits themselves if
it decreases the overall sales in the entire market?