Voter paradigm

Author: Ramshutu ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 10
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    in most debate tournaments I’ve seen, debates are able to see information about the judges, with paradigm information about what they like to see, and how they render decisions: there are a variety of examples (such as tabroom) that allow debaters to get a feel for what the expectation is from judges they’re assigned, and how they can win a debate.

    i get the feeling that something similar can be useful here, especially as I’ve had people basically argue as if being a game theorist is the only legitimate way of judging a debate. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,915
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Ramshutu
    Game-theory is why I am so good at staying on top of any food chain I enter.

    Game-theory is everything, whether you're a psychopath or not. People are tools and you must use them whether you want to or not. Predicting the voters and the consequence of you carrying out a vote including the extremity, not just quantity, of the revenge is key.

    Voting, debating... All of it... Game theory. Game theory is why you'd eat a meal your mother or lover cooked you without testing it for poison but wouldn't do the same for someone who is a huge rival or is a proven morally-devoid person otherwise.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,915
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    Start off playing poker and training yourself at it, it's possibly the single best game/science to master if you wish to get good at game-theory. People who say chess is, don't understand how to handle chaos.
  • DrChristineFord
    DrChristineFord avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    2
    DrChristineFord avatar
    DrChristineFord
    --> @Ramshutu
    Brilliant idea.  Yes. 
  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 963
    2
    3
    5
    coal avatar
    coal
    --> @Ramshutu
    I'd be happy to explain my paradigm. 
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    Poker isn't that chaotic. You just take your range of hands and factor in your opponents range of hands, Then determine what move will give you the best possible expected value and you make that move then boom you win if you play long enough to beat the expected variance patterns that arrive. 
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    Of course I am referring to cash games, in tournaments it is often better to take a lower EV line in certain situations to reduce variance for example if you are on the bubble and playing with a small bankroll maybe not take coinflip all ins even if you are a slight favorite.
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    Also bsh1 is a rival of mine and if he brought me a big mac I would eat it. If he was attempting to assassinate me, we both win. It's not the theory of poker that is tough to master. It is battling tilt. Tilt is a bitch. Somebody could spit in my face and I would not react with anger, but if I get them to put their money in when I am a 98% facorite to win, and I lose. Well then, I just start trying to take revenge by pushing people around with my chips. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,915
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I alternate my plays and make -ev moves that are +ev against skilled players. I use their good math against them. That's part of the game theory.

  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 34
    Forum posts: 1,645
    5
    8
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    Added a section on it to my profile.

    Judging Paradigm:
    1. Resolution is key: I pay close attention to the precise resolution and definitions, and am unswayed by attempts to move the goalpost to another topic.
    2. Four Points > Winner Selection: I prefer categorical ballots, but will only award arguments unless another category is decisive.
    3. I have ethical integrity: This means I will neither award points on debates to which I am too heavily biased, nor partake in vote-trading.
    4. Presentation: I appreciate both conciseness and organization. If you hide your point within a jumbled wall of text with no clear goal, their importance will likely be diminished.