| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=9917 |
Page 14 of 16 |
| Author: | Kirby [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Uberdude wrote: Every move played in the next 30 days, not past moves. And an amusing empty triangle is 2 rather than 1, not 2 as well as 1. You could provide empty triangle payout as a function of the level of amusement: Payout = $1 (for the move) + f(A) where A is a fraction between 0.01 and 1.0 representing your amusement from the empty triangle (0.01 is "meh", and 1.0 is "roflcopter"), and f maps the fraction directly to the corresponding dollar value. For example, if you'd give the empty triangle 6.3 stars out of 10, the amusement would be 0.63, which is $0.63, for a payout of $1.63. |
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Lowers the average. If he follows that scheme, he ought to map it onto the interval [0,2] or something, so that the expected average is $1. |
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
hyperpape wrote: Lowers the average. If he follows that scheme, he ought to map it onto the interval [0,2] or something, so that the expected average is $1. Well, he can donate however he wants - I'm kind of joking. But if he is going to pay $1 for a move no matter what, and he pays $2 for amusing empty triangles, then I think the expected payout is still between $1 and $2, depending on his sense of amusement. In other words, let's say an empty triangle is played. Based on what Uberdude has already said, he'll pay at least $1 since he said he'd pay $1 for any move. But he might pay $2 for an "amusing" empty triangle. So the payoff for empty triangle under the current conditions is either $1 (empty triangle, but not amusing), or $2 (empty triangle - and amusing!). I don't know how easily Uberdude is amused, and I also don't know how many empty triangles are coming up, so it's hard to say what the average expected payoff over time is going to be. But it'll still be between $1 and $2 (inclusive) for a given empty triangle. The only difference with my scheme is that it allows Uberdude to quantify his amusement more specifically - it's not just "yes, amusing" or "no, not amusing", he can specify varying degrees of "somewhat amusing"... I have a feeling I have too much free time today. I guess it's Friday. |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Kirby wrote: ... I have a feeling I have too much free time today. I guess it's Friday. Please allow me to relieve you of that problem: viewtopic.php?p=197425#p197425 |
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Kirby wrote: Well, he can donate however he wants - I'm kind of joking. Well, I'm deadly serious, and you're wrong. He made a commitment, and I think your proposal doesn't fulfill the letter or the spirit of it! He said $2 for an empty triangle. I'll compromise, and accept a sliding scale with an average of $2, but nothing less. 
|
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
hyperpape wrote: Well, I'm deadly serious, and you're wrong. He made a commitment, and I think your proposal doesn't fulfill the letter or the spirit of it! He said $2 for an empty triangle. I'll compromise, and accept a sliding scale with an average of $2, but nothing less. As much as I'd like to be wrong, that's not what he said; he said that he'd pay $2 for an amusing empty triangle: Uberdude wrote: Sure! And $2 for amusing empty triangles. So no matter how many empty triangles Joaz plays, Uberdude can define whether or not he thinks it's amusing. If he thinks none of them are amusing, to be consistent with his earlier statements, he'd only have to play $1 for each empty triangle - they are moves - and they are empty triangles, but not "amusing empty triangles". So an easily amused Uberdude would pay $2 for any empty triangle, whereas an uneasily amused Uberdude would pay $1 for most empty triangles (since he doesn't find them amusing). My (joking) suggestion was to quantify his level of amusement such that he could pay in proportion to his amusement for a given empty triangle (between $1 and $2, depending on how amusing). Yes, you are correct that this may lead to a lower average payment than paying $2 for every empty triangle. But that's not what Uberdude promised to. He promised to pay for amusing empty triangles. And I'm sure, with discussions like these, Uberdude is more inclined to donate lots of money to Joaz's fund. Where else can you get this kind of entertainment? |
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
You're right, I left amusing out of there. But I think my point of view still makes sense. Your proposal means that he donates less than $1 for almost all empty triangles that are somewhat amusing, even those that are very amusing! Mine preserves the idea a typical amusing empty triangle is worth a dollar. However, I may be beating a dead horse. I will bow out, and let Uberdude and the public decide whose point of view makes the most sense. Edit: that's of course ignoring the $1 per move baseline. Where I say $1, read "$1 for the empty triangle, in addition to the $1 for making a move". Of course, I made this edit after Kirby posted... |
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
hyperpape wrote: You're right, I left amusing out of there. But I think my point of view still makes sense. Your proposal means that he donates less than $1 for almost all empty triangles that are somewhat amusing, even those that are very amusing! Mine preserves the idea a typical amusing empty triangle is worth a dollar. However, I may be beating a dead horse. I will bow out, and let Uberdude and the public decide whose point of view makes the most sense. No, my proposal preserves the dollar minimum per move: Payout = $1 (for the move) + f(A) (see above) The $1 is for the move, and the function f is what varies between 0 and 1. So the range of the function is from $1 to $2. The example I provided had 63% amusement, for a payout of $1.63. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Chop chop drmwc, only $2 so far and 12 days left! |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: Bump. Drmwc, it is that time of the year again. |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
It has been about 6 months since I moved. DrMWC, are you still around? |
|
| Author: | drmwc [ Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
E2. I forgot about this forum for a bit!  |
|
| Author: | drmwc [ Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
My opponent is back. It must be time for my yearly move. I may need a few months to think about it. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: My opponent is back. It must be time for my yearly move. I may need a few months to think about it. 
|
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
I'll play fast. Maybe he won't notice that his clock is running and I can win on time. |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
@Observers: |
|
| Author: | drmwc [ Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
| Author: | drmwc [ Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
I think I may actually be ahead in time now! (Probably not if anyone is actually counting, though.) |
|
| Author: | jonsa [ Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: #231 drmwc vs Joaz Banbeck |
BUMP (I've been a lurker for a while but it was the tragic evaporation of this game that compelled me to make an account so it could surface once more. I want to see the conclusion!) |
|
| Page 14 of 16 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|