Tim wrote:
MK wrote:
compare one ratio with another ratio.
> There's a more direct way to investigate the > question as I've formulated it. I don't know how to understand the word "direct" in this context. Would you care to explain? > Fix some number of games, say 10, and define a > "session" to be 10 games ..... Play a session > ..... Record who wins (meaning just who comes > out ahead at the end of the session; ignore > the margin of victory) ..... play 1000 sessions, > and record which bot wins. Then ask the question, > does the weaker bot win a greater fraction of > the 1000 sessions when the cube is in play? Can you offer a reason for why this will be more telling that playing sessions of 10,000 games? The purpose of the cube is to expedite gambling. Thus the "margin of victory" is essential. What you are doing is reducing a "money game session" to a "sort of match play", which restricts the ability (created by the cube) to capitalize on fluctuations of luck, in trying to win as many points as possible. It was "intuitively" (and falsely) believed for so many years that the players with more of the so-called cube skill would win more. Now that I debunked this "skill theory based on jackoffski formulas", it seems to me that your suggestion is just a contortion to at least mitigate the defeat since you can't disprove that the cube magnifies luck instead of skill. This discussion is not strictly about GnuBG but I think is appropriate in this forum as it may help the bot developers in improving the luck related calculations, etc. MK PS: I don't know how you are posting here but unlike posts from other people, I don't receive yours by email and wouldn't know about them if I hadn't happened to visit the forum's web site.
