[Closed] Proving that GTO is Level Infinity

Originally posted by yadijavadi
Premise = GTO is Level Infinity

Evidence = I showed that as we advance through the Levels, the ranges we’d use become more balanced. I gave a very clear example.

Something new = I bet you haven’t read anywhere that Level Infinity is GTO before.

Your start from a false premise. Game theory is a complex mathematical discipline and what is optimal depends on a wide variety of factors -- also mathematical.

The levels of thought that you refer to is old news -- pretty much as old as poker.
Even if your premise was sound, one example -- or even thousands -- does not provide proof. Proof would require a rigorous methodology that mathematically eliminates counter-examples.

I have not read anywhere (other than here) that Level Infinity is GTO because the entire statement lacks meaning.

Are you just baiting us? You repeat the same stuff over and over and accuse us of failing to grasp your meaning, when in fact it is you who fail to grasp the simple facts that your enlightened wisdom is old knowledge, and your supposedly brilliant insight is meaningless due to the false premise that Game Theory has something to do with thought.

Also -- you said I had been rude -- my apologies. I thought I showed great restraint in my last post -- and even more in this one.

Peace,
VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Please provide what was requested:
A clear and concise statement outlining your premise, followed by clear proof that this is new and different.

You wrote this about 5 times. Provide me with a premise. Provide me with evidence. You were pretty clear that I needed to give you a premise. You said that my original post was the “Incoherant ramblings of a madman” because it had no structure. No premise. No evidence. No argument. But now you are saying that in fact, I did provide you with a premise all along, I provided all those things, but you just think they're wrong…

Surely you’re not usually this insulting with someone who you think is wrong?? I do appreciate the apology, but it’s a little cold when in the same post you continue to mock me in the same way.

Will you now concede that your argument, that this problem with my non-existent premise, was irrational?? I doubt it. I’ve had this conversation before and you always just jump to the next problem and use that to justify your insulting and aggressive approach. If, somehow, I can prove that this next problem is irrational like the last, you will simply jump to another problem. You will insult me all the way, trying to discredit my logic by embarrassing me, by belittling me, and you will never be satisfied. You will struggle to control the emotions that you are feeling, which I know is the result of cognitive dissonance, but you will just find some irrational reason to blame me for these feelings. This is clearly evident in your post. You say that these abusive irrational messages are actually the result of you showing restraint because you think, wwwwhat, that I’m trying to bait you!!?? I was really nice and friendly, I tried to make my posts entertaining, and the only person I insulted was myself lol! I’m not secretly trying to cause you this mental discomfort. I’m trying to help you man.

By myself, it is extremely hard to give aid to those who are suffering from this psychological problem. If you guys joined me, this problem would almost instantly be cured all over the world. It would be almost impossible for the masses to discredit the combined minds of Pokerstrategy.com. On my own though, it is tedious and slow going. All I can do is wade through the hale of insults to explain yet again that your next problem with my logic is irrational... So...

You say that the premise was clear, and the real reason you have a problem is because you disagree with it, you think its false.

1) You said that my “Enlightened wisdom is old knowledge”, because the Levels of thought are as old as poker - This is clearly irrational. Its completely beside the point. I didn’t come here and explain that I have a genius new thing I call the Levels of thought. I came here to show you that the ranges used at each level become more balanced as you advance.

Next!

2) You said that that evidence is not good enough. You say that I need to provide a mathematical solution that garble garble garble. I obviously suck at math, I don’t even understand your sentence lol. You have clearly seen that I suck as I just gave it away in my very last post, you then shamelessly targeted my weakness to use as proof that my evidence is nonsense. It is a genius move by you, which I’m sure was done almost entirely subconsciously as your suffering from this psychological problem, but it is impressive non the less. Bloody, minds of poker players are not the easiest to combat. But, anyway, let’s look at what you said. You say that there is no way to prove this logic without using some complex math. You say that if I gave you a million examples of situations, and in each situation the ranges used got closer to equilibrium as the Levels advance, this would still not prove that the ranges get closer to equilibrium as they advance! Bloody hell Mike, you’re a tough cookie. I notice that you didn’t actually find any flaw in my evidence, and yet you feel this evidence is weak enough for you to repeatedly mock nonsensically?? Surely you must see you are not being fair??? That you are not being your usual self? My fault though I guess. Standard. Anyway, I suck at math, I cannot complete the near impossible task you set me. I am basically just a philosopher. And so the argument I can give is this - Nobody can be certain of anything. Everyone has a different stage of clarity where they accept that something has been proven. As you have no argument to content with what I would deem extremely strong evidence, I ask that you allow others to continue reading and commenting because for many people my solid evidence will be plenty strong enough.

Next!

3) “Your supposedly brilliant insight is meaningless due to the false premise that Game Theory has something to do with thought”

Wikipedia –

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction between rational decision-makers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic and computer science. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which one person's gains result in losses for the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.

“Your supposedly brilliant insight is meaningless due to the false premise that Game Theory has something to do with thought”

Wikipedia

...

Maybe read a bit further than just the one sentence at the end that backs up what you believe to be true. You accuse others of having this 'psychological problem', but I guess your confirmation bias is one as well. Just read the first sentence of the page you quoted: "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction between rational decision-makers".

Game theory is applied in many fields, yes. However game theory is about decision-making by rational entities. What this means is that there's no actual thinking involved in the sense that you believe to be the case. The decision-makers being rational means they always make the decision that gives them the best mathematical outcome. It means the best outcome and the best decision can be calculated. Long story short, they do this by doing the math, not by doing the thinking. Game theory isn't a level of thought, it's math.

Take the classic prisoner's dilemma, which is basically the first thing you get taught when learning about game theory. 2 guys robbed a bank but there's not enough evidence, unless one of the guys betrays the other. If both confess, they serve 5 years in prison. If neither confess, there's not enough evidence and they go to jail for 1 year for a small misdemeanor. If one confesses, the other gets 20 years prison time and the one that confessed walks free. They need to make their decision independent from each other, at the same time and without having the option to discuss with each other.

So in this case they would both choose to confess, because if A confesses, he always gets less jail time regardless of the decision B makes. Because the outcome will always be better if he confesses vs if he denies, a rational being will always confess, because it's mathematically the correct option. In fact, both guys confessing in this case is a Nash equilibrium. Another mathematical concept! Not, however, a level of thought.

To somewhat stick to poker terms, I guess you could say both prisoners in this example balanced their ranges and played GTO, meaning they can't be exploited regardless of what the other person does. They didn't use any mind games. There is no "I think you think that I think that you will confess" up till infinity where they magically got to an equilibrium. No mind games, just math. Therefore:

Premise = GTO is Level Infinity

No.

GTO doesn't go into the levels of thinking as it's math and therefore it can't be "level infinity".