Search:

[QUOTE=Voss;842674]I think the takeaway from that video is kind of how I try to play mafia. At a certain point, gut reads are going to be your best bet, because everyone is playing as optimally as they can in an "expert" game.[/QUOTE]
I expected more resistance than agreement tbh.
Because I felt like all it takes for a player to have a bias and think something like "the best players win!" is to have just 1 game where they [B]felt[/B] that they outplayed the rest. Similarly to how I expect a poker player, after having one good day, can think for life that poker can make them rich and not see the bigger picture.


[QUOTE=aamirus;842671]So you use like random.org to pick a lynch and everybody has to follow it? Then you’d get the theoretical win percentages [MENTION=29377]Marshmallow Marshall[/MENTION][/QUOTE]
My idea was that FM results are potentially more random than players would be willing to accept?
Like, I think that if you studied a lot about FM, your overall win percentage in the long run would go up by like let's say 5%. For example, can't master the game and get from 40% to 70% or something like that.

But yeah, the thing is that most players will are not experts. So maybe it's not like that in actual practice and we can get experts that win everyone? Not sure..

Originally Posted by Voss

I think the takeaway from that video is kind of how I try to play mafia. At a certain point, gut reads are going to be your best bet, because everyone is playing as optimally as they can in an "expert" game.

I expected more resistance than agreement tbh.
Because I felt like all it takes for a player to have a bias and think something like "the best players win!" is to have just 1 game where they felt that they outplayed the rest. Similarly to how I expect a poker player, after having one good day, can think for life that poker can make them rich and not see the bigger picture.

Originally Posted by aamirus

So you use like random.org to pick a lynch and everybody has to follow it? Then you’d get the theoretical win percentages @Marshmallow Marshall

My idea was that FM results are potentially more random than players would be willing to accept?
Like, I think that if you studied a lot about FM, your overall win percentage in the long run would go up by like let's say 5%. For example, can't master the game and get from 40% to 70% or something like that.

But yeah, the thing is that most players will are not experts. So maybe it's not like that in actual practice and we can get experts that win everyone? Not sure..

That monkey analogy in my opening post was a bit outplaced, as it's the no brain index funds that outperform the experts. Sounded cooler though. :P

That monkey analogy in my opening post was a bit outplaced, as it's the no brain index funds that outperform the experts. Sounded cooler though. :P

So, apparently, in the business of stock market - monkeys throwing random darts [B]outperform[/B] the biggest brains in the business because everyone tries to outsmart everyone and so nothing is predictable.
[url]https://youtu.be/_vdB7gphtyo[/url]
The best way to make money in that business is to teach or manage others for a fee. :laugh:

I just wonder.
If you had a FM game full with highly experienced veteran players. Could it be the same? Random?

So, apparently, in the business of stock market - monkeys throwing random darts outperform the biggest brains in the business because everyone tries to outsmart everyone and so nothing is predictable.
https://youtu.be/_vdB7gphtyo
The best way to make money in that business is to teach or manage others for a fee.

I just wonder.
If you had a FM game full with highly experienced veteran players. Could it be the same? Random?