quiet_NaN

• quiet_NaN 10 May 2024 22:38 UTC

  1 point

  0

  on: Dat­ing Roundup #3: Third Time’s the Charm

  Cassette AI: “Dude I just matched with a model”

  “No way”

  “Yeah large language”

  
  This made me laugh out loud.

  Otherwise, my idea for a dating system would be that given that the majority of texts written will invariably end up being LLM-generated, it would be better if every participant openly had an AI system as their agent. Then the AI systems of both participants could chat and figure out how their user would rate the other user based on their past ratings of suggestions. If the users end up being rated among each others five most viable candidates,

  Of course, if the agents are under the full control of the users, the next step of escalation will be that users will tell their agents to lie on their behalf. (‘I am into whatever she is into. If she is big on horses, make up a cute story about me having had a pony at some point. Just put the relevant points on the cheat sheet for the date’.) This might be solved by having the LLM start by sending out a fixed text document. If horses are mentioned as item 521, after entomology but before figure skating, the user is probably not very interested in them. Of course, nothing would prevent a user from at least generically optimizing their profile to their target audience. “A/​B testing has shown that the people you want to date are mostly into manga, social justice and ponies, so this is what you should put on your profile.” Adversarially generated boyfriend?

• quiet_NaN 10 May 2024 21:45 UTC

  1 point

  0

  on: AI and Chem­i­cal, Biolog­i­cal, Ra­diolog­i­cal, & Nu­clear Hazards: A Reg­u­la­tory Review

  I was fully expecting having to write yet another comment about how human-level AI will not be very useful for a nuclear weapon program. I concede that the dangers mentioned instead (someone putting an AI in charge of a reactor or nuke) seem much more realistic.

  Of course, the utility of avoiding sub-extinction negative outcomes with AI in the near future is highly dependent on p(doom). For example, if there is no x-risk, then the first order effects of avoiding locally bad outcomes related to CBRN hazards are clearly beneficial.

  On the other hand, if your p(doom) is 90%, then making sure that non-superhuman AI systems work without incident is alike to clothing kids in asbestos gear so they don’t hurt themselves while playing with matches.

  Basically, if you think a road leads somewhere useful, you would prefer that the road goes smoothly, while if a road leads off a cliff you would prefer it to be full of potholes so that travelers might think twice about taking it.

  Personally, I tend to favor first-order effects (like fewer crazies being able to develop chemical weapons) over hypothetical higher order effects (like chemical attacks by AI-empowered crazies leading to a Butlerian Jihad and preventing an unaligned AI killing all humans). “This looks locally bad, but is actually part of a brilliant 5-dimensional chess move which will lead to better global outcomes” seems like the excuse of every other movie villain.

• quiet_NaN 10 May 2024 16:32 UTC

  1 point

  0

  on: Ex­plain­ing a Math Magic Trick

  Edit: looks like was already raised by Dacyn and answered to my satisfaction by Robert_AIZI. Correctly applying the fundamental theorem of calculus will indeed prevent that troublesome zero from appearing in the RHS in the first place, which seems much preferable to dealing with it later.

  My real analysis might be a bit rusty, but I think defining I as the definite integral breaks the magic trick.

  I mean, in the last line of the ‘proof’, $1+I+I^2+\dots$ gets applied to the zero function.

  Any definitive integral of the zero function is zero, so you end up with f(x)=0, which is much less impressive.

  More generally, asking the question Op(f)=0 for any invertable linear operator Op is likely to set yourself up for disappointment. Since the trick relies on inverting an operator, we might want to use a non-linear operator.

  $I\left(f\right(x\left)\right):={\int }_0^{x}f\left(x\right)dx+C$ where C is some global constant might be better. (This might affect the radius of convergence of that Taylor series, do not use for production yet!)

  This should result in… uhm… $C+(Cx+C)+(C\frac{x^2}{2}+Cx+C)+\dots$?

  Which is a lot more work to reorder than the original convention used in the ‘proof’ where all the indefinite integrals of the zero function are conveniently assumed to be the same constant, and all other indefinite integrals conveniently have integration constants of zero.

  Even if we sed s/​C//$ϵ$​ and proclaim that $ϵ$ should be small (e.g. compared to x) and we are only interested in the leading order terms, this would not work. What one would have to motivate is throwing everything but the leading power of x out for every $I^n$ evaluation, then later meticulously track these lower order terms in the sum to arrive at the Taylor series of the exponential.

• quiet_NaN 4 May 2024 20:26 UTC

  3 points

  −2

  in reply to: Nathan Helm-Burger’s comment on: Why I’m do­ing PauseAI

  I think I have two disagreements with your assessment.

  First, the probability of a random independent AI researcher or hobbyist discovering a neat hack to make AI training cheaper and taking over. GPT4 took 100M$ to train and is not enough to go FOOM. To train the same thing within the budget of the median hobbyist would require algorithmic advantages of three or four orders of magnitude.

  Historically, significant progress has been made by hobbyists and early pioneers, but mostly in areas which were not under intense scrutiny by established academia. Often, the main achievement of a pioneer is discovering a new field, them picking all the low-hanging fruits is more of a bonus. If you had paid a thousand mathematicians to think about signal transmission on a telegraph wire or semaphore tower, they probably would have discovered Shannon entropy. Shannon’s genius was to some degree looking into things nobody else was looking into which later blew up into a big field.

  It is common knowledge that machine learning is a booming field. Experts from every field of mathematics have probably thought if there is a way to apply their insights to ML. While there are certainly still discoveries to be made, all the low-hanging fruits have been picked. If a hobbyist manages to build the first ASI, that would likely be because they discover a completely new paradigm—perhaps beyond NNs. The risk that a hobbyist discovers a concept which lets them use their gaming GPU to train an AGI does not seem that much higher than in 2018 -- either would be completely out of the left field.

  My second disagreement is the probability of an ASI being roughly aligned with human values, or to be more precise, the difference of that probability conditional on who discovers it. The median independent AI enthusiast is not a total asshole [citation needed], so if alignment is easy and they discover ASI, chances are that they will be satisfied with becoming the eternal god emperor of our light cone and not bother to tell their ASI to turn any any huge number of humans to fine red mist. This outcome will not be so different than if Facebook develops an aligned ASI first. If alignment is hard—which we have some reason to believe it is—then the hobbyist who builds ASI by accident will doom the world, but I am also rather cynical about the odds of big tech having much better odds.

  Going full steam ahead is useful if (a) the odds of a hobbyist building ASI if big tech stops capability research are significant and (b) alignment is very likely for big tech and unlikely for the hobbyist. I do not think either one is true.

• quiet_NaN 4 May 2024 17:29 UTC

  5 points

  2

  on: Why I’m do­ing PauseAI

  Maybe GPT-5 will be extremely good at interpretability, such that it can recursively self improve by rewriting its own weights.

  I am by no means an expert on machine learning, but this sentence reads weird to me.

  I mean, it seems possible that a part of a NN develops some self-reinforcing feature which uses the gradient descent (or whatever is used in training) to go into a particular direction and take over the NN, like a human adrift on a raft in the ocean might decide to build a sail to make the raft go into a particular direction.

  Or is that sentence meant to indicate that an instance running after training might figure out how to hack the computer running it so it can actually change it’s own weights?

  Personally, I think that if GPT-5 is the point of no return, it is more likely that it is because it would be smart enough to actually help advance AI after it is trained. While improving semiconductors seems hard and would require a lot of work in the real world done with human cooperation, finding better NN architectures and training algorithms seems like something well in the realm of the possible, if not exactly plausible.

  So if I had to guess how GPT-5 might doom humanity, I would say that in a few million instance-hours it figures out how to train LLMs of its own power for 1/​100th of the cost, and this information becomes public.

  The budgets of institutions which might train NN probably follows some power law, so if training cutting edge LLMs becomes a hundred times cheaper, the number of institutions which could build cutting edge LLMs becomes many orders of magnitude higher—unless the big players go full steam ahead towards a paperclip maximizer, of course. This likely mean that voluntary coordination (if that was ever on the table) becomes impossible. And setting up a worldwide authoritarian system to impose limits would also be both distasteful and difficult.

• quiet_NaN 29 Apr 2024 23:19 UTC

  4 points

  1

  on: Big-en­dian is bet­ter than lit­tle-endian

  I think that it is obvious that Middle-Endianness is a satisfactory compromise between Big and Little Endian.

  More seriously, it depends on what you want to do with the number. If you want to use it in a precise calculation, such as adding it to another number, you obviously want to process the least significant digits of the inputs first (which is what bit serial processors literally do).

  If I want to know if a serially transmitted number is below or above a threshold, it would make sense to transmit it MSB first (with a fixed length).

  Of course, using integers to count the number of people in India seems like using the wrong tool for the job to me altogether. Even if you were an omniscient ASI, this level of precision would require you to have clear standards at what time a human counts as born and at least provide a second-accurate timestamp or something. Few people care if the population in India was divisible by 17 at any fixed point in time, which is what we would mostly use integers for.

  The natural type for the number of people in India (as opposed to the number of people in your bedroom) would be a floating point number.

  And the correct way to specify a floating point number is to start with the exponent, which is the most important part. You will need to parse all of the bits of the exponent either way to get an idea of the magnitude of the number (unless we start encoding the exponent as a floating point number, again.)

  The next most important thing is the sign bit. Then comes the mantissa, starting with the most significant bit.

  So instead of writing

  The electric charge of the electron is $-1.602176634\times {10}^{-19}C$.

  What we should write is:

  The electric charge of the electron is $C\times {10}^{-19}\times -\mathrm{1.602176634.}$

  Standardizing for a shorter form (1.6e-19 C --> ??) is left as an exercise to the reader, as are questions about the benefits we get from switching to base-2 exponentials (base-e exponentials do not seem particularly handy, I kind of like using the same system of digits for both my floats and my ints) and omitting the then-redundant one in front of the dot of the mantissa.

• quiet_NaN 27 Apr 2024 0:57 UTC

  5 points

  0

  in reply to: faul_sname’s comment on: Duct Tape security

  The sum of two numbers should have a precision no higher than the operand with the highest precision. For example, adding 0.1 + 0.2 should yield 0.3, not 0.30000000000000004.

  I would argue that the precision should be capped at the lowest precision of the operands. In physics, if you add to lengths, 0.123m+0.123456m should be rounded to 0.246m.

  Also, IEEE754 fundamentally does not contain information about the precision of a number. If you want to track that information correctly, you can use two floating point numbers and do interval arithmetic. There is even an IEEE standard for that nowadays.

  Of course, this comes at a cost. While monotonic functions can be converted for interval arithmetic, the general problem of finding the extremal values of a function in some high-dimensional domain is a hard problem. Of course, if you know how the function is composed out of simpler operations, you can at least find some bounds.

  Or you could do what physicists do (at least when they are taking lab courses) and track physical quantities with a value and a precision, and do uncertainty propagation. (This might not be 100% kosher in cases where you first calculate multiple intermediate quantities from the same measurement (whose error will thus not be independent) and continue to treat them as if they were. But that might just give you bigger errors.) Also, this relies on your function being sufficiently well-described in the region of interest by the partial derivatives at the central point. If you calculate the uncertainty of $f(x,y)=xy$ for $x=0.1\pm 1$, $y=0.1\pm 1$ using the partial derivatives you will not have fun.

• quiet_NaN 25 Apr 2024 17:53 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: niplav’s comment on: My ex­pe­rience us­ing fi­nan­cial com­mit­ments to over­come akrasia

  In the subagent view, a financial precommitment another subagent has arranged for the sole purpose of coercing you into one course of action is a threat.

  Plenty of branches of decision theory advise you to disregard threats because consistently doing so will mean that instances of you will more rarely find themselves in the position to be threatened.

  Of course, one can discuss how rational these subagents are in the first place. The “stay in bed, watch netflix and eat potato chips” subagent is probably not very concerned with high level abstract planning and might have a bad discount function for future benefits and not be overall that interested in the utility he get from being principled.

• quiet_NaN 25 Apr 2024 17:15 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: My ex­pe­rience us­ing fi­nan­cial com­mit­ments to over­come akrasia

  To whomever overall-downvoted this comment, I do not think that this is a troll.

  Being a depressed person, I can totally see this being real. Personally, I would try to start slow with positive reinforcement. If video games are the only thing which you can get yourself to do, start there. Try to do something intellectually interesting in them. Implement a four bit adder in dwarf fortress using cat logic. Play KSP with the Principia mod. Write a mod for a game. Use math or Monte Carlo simulations to figure out the best way to accomplish something in a video game even if it will take ten times longer than just taking a non-optimal route. Some of my proudest intellectual accomplishments are in projects which have zero bearing on the real world.

  (Of course, I am one to talk right now. Spending five hours playing Rimworld in a not-terrible-clever way for every hour I work on my thesis.)

• quiet_NaN 20 Apr 2024 19:38 UTC

  1 point

  −3

  on: hy­dro­gen tube transport

  You quoted:

  the vehicle can cruise at Mach 2.8 while consuming less than half the energy per passenger of a Boeing 747 at a cruise speed of Mach 0.81

  
  This is not how Mach works. You are subsonic iff your Mach number is smaller than one. The fact that you would be supersonic if you were flying in a different medium has no bearing on your Mach number.

  I would also like to point out that while hydrogen on its own is rather inert and harmless, its reputation in transportation as a gas which stays inert under all practical conditions is not entirely unblemished.

  The beings travelling in the carriages are likely descendants of survivors of the Oxygen Catastrophe and will require an oxygen-containing atmosphere to survive.

  Neglecting nitrogen, you have oxygen surrounded by hydrogen surrounded by oxygen. If you need to escape, you will need to pass through that atmosphere of one bar H2. There is no great way to do that, too little O2 means too little oxidation and suffocation, more O2 means that the your atmosphere is explosive. (The trick with hydrox does not work at ambient pressure.)

  Contrast with a vacuum-filled tunnel. If anything goes badly wrong, you can always flood the tunnel with air over a minute, going to conditions which are as safe as a regular tunnel during an accident which is still not all that great. But being 10km up in the air is also not great if something goes wrong.

  Barlow’s formula means that the material required for a vacuum tunnel scales with the diameter squared. For transporting humans, a diameter of 1m might be sufficient. At least, I would not pay 42 times as much for the privilege of travelling in a 6.5m outer diameter (i.e. 747 sized) cabin instead. Just lie there and sleep or watch TV on the overhead screen.

• quiet_NaN 20 Apr 2024 17:31 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Joel Burget’s comment on: CTMU in­sight: maybe con­scious­ness *can* af­fect quan­tum out­comes?

  If this was true, how could we tell? In other words, is this a testable hypothesis?

  This. Physics runs on falsifiable predictions. If ‘consciousness can affect quantum outcomes’ is any more true than the classic ‘there is an invisible dragon in my garage’, then discovering that fact would seem easy from an experimentalist standpoint. Sources of quantum randomness (e.g. weak source+detector) are readily available, so any claimant who thinks they can predict or affect their outcomes could probably be tested initially for a few 100$.

  General remark:

  One way this could turn out to be true is if it’s a priori more likely that there are special, nonrandom portions of the quantum multiverse we’re being sampled from. For example, if we had a priori reasons for expecting that we’re in a simulation by some superintelligence trying to calculate the most likely distribution of superintelligences in foreign universes for acausal trade reasons, then we would have a priori reasons for expecting to find ourselves in Everett branches in which our civilization ends up producing some kind of superintelligence – i.e., that it’s in our logical past that our civilization ends up building some sort of superintelligence.

  It is not clear to me that this would result in a lower Kolmogorov complexity at all. Such an algorithm could of course use a pseudo-random number generator for the vast majority quantum events which do not affect p(ASI) (like the creation of CMB photons), but this is orthogonal to someone nudging the relevant quantum events towards ASI. For these relevant events, I am not sure that the description “just do whatever favors ASI” is actually shorter than just the sequence of events.

  I mean, if we are simulated by a Turing Machine (which is equivalent to quantum events having a low Kolmogorov complexity), then a TM which just implements the true laws of physics (and cheats with a PNRG, not like the inhabitants would ever notice) is surely simpler than one which tries to optimize towards some distant outcome state.

  As an analogy, think about the Kolmogorov complexity of a transcript of a very long game of chess. If both opponents are following a simple algorithm of “determine the allowed moves, then use a PRNG to pick one of them”, that should have a bound complexity. If both are chess AIs which want to win the game (i.e. optimize towards a certain state) and use a deterministic PRNG (lest we are incompressible), the size of your Turing Machine—which /​is/​ the Kolmogorov complexity—just explodes.

  Of course, if your goal is to build a universe which invents ASI, do you really need QM at all? Sure, some algorithms run faster in-universe on a QC, but if you cared about efficiency, you would not use so many levels of abstraction in the first place.

  Look at me rambling about universe-simulating TMs. Enough, enough.

• quiet_NaN 16 Apr 2024 13:04 UTC

  4 points

  0

  on: Re­con­sider the anti-cav­ity bac­te­ria if you are Asian

  Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

  (George Carlin)

  For this to be a risk, the cancer risk would have to be superlinear in the acetaldehyde concentration. In a linear model, the high local concentrations would not matter overall, because the expected number of mutations you get would not depend on how you distribute the carcinogen among your body cells.

  Or the cells in your mouth or throat could be especially vulnerable to cancer.

  From my understanding, having bacteria in your mouth which break down sugar to ethanol is not some bizarre mad science scheme, but it is something which happens naturally, as an alternative to the lactic acid pathway, and people who never get cavities naturally lucked out on their microbiome. This in turn would mean that even among teetotaler AFR patients there should be an excess of oral cancers, and ideally an inverse correlation between number of lifetime cavities and cancer rates.

  On the meta level, I find myself slightly annoyed if people use image formats to transport text, especially text like the quotes from Scott’s FAQ which could be easily copy-pasted into a quotation. Accessibility is probably less of an issue than it was 20 years ago thanks to ML, but this still does not optimize for robustness.

• quiet_NaN 13 Apr 2024 19:13 UTC

  33 points

  0

  on: Carl Sa­gan, nuk­ing the moon, and not nuk­ing the moon

  One thing to keep in mind is that the delta-v required to reach LEO is some 9.3km/​s. (Handy map)

  This is an upper limit for what delta-v can be militarily useful in ICBMs for fighting on our rock.

  Going from LEO to the moon requires another 3.1km/​s.

  This might not seem much, but makes a huge difference in the payload to thruster ratio due to the rocket equation.

  If physics were different and the moon was within reach of ICBMs then I imagine it might have become the default test site for nuclear tipped ICBMs.

  Instead, the question was “do we want to develop an expensive delivery system with no military use^[1] purely as a propaganda stunt?”

  Of course, ten years later, the Outer Space Treaty was signed which prohibits stationing weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies.^[2]

  1. ^

     Or no military use until the moon people require nuking, at least.

  2. ^

     The effect of forbidding nuking the moon is more accidental. I guess that if I were a superpower, I would be really nervous if a rival decided to put nukes into LEO where they would pass a few hundred kilometers over my cities and into them with the smallest of nudges. The fact that mankind decided to skip on a race of “who can pollute LEO most by putting most nukes there” (which would have entailed radioactive material being scattered when rockets blow up during launch (as rockets are wont to) as well as IT security considerations regarding authentication and deorbiting concerns^[3]) is one of the brighter moments in the history of our species.

  3. ^

     Apart from ‘what if the nuke goes off on reentry?’ and ‘what if the radioactive material gets scattered’ there is also a case to be made that supplying a Great Old Ones with nuclear weapons may not be the wisest choice of action.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 22:59 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: simeon_c’s comment on: simeon_c’s Shortform

  I am sure that Putin had something like the Anschluss in mind when he started his invasion.

  Luckily for the west, he was wrong about that.

  From a Machiavellian perspective, the war in Ukraine is good for the West: for a modest investment in resources, we can bind a belligerent Russia while someone else does all the dying. From a humanitarian perspective, war is hell and we should hope for a peace where Putin gets whatever he has managed to grab while the rest of Ukraine joins NATO and will be protected by NATO nukes from further aggression.

  I am also not sure that a conventional arms race is the answer to Russia. I am very doubtful that a war between a NATO member and Russia would stay a regional or conventional conflict.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 22:27 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: “How the Gaza Health Ministry Fakes Ca­su­alty Num­bers”

  Anything related to the Israel/​Palestine conflict is invoking politics the mind killer.

  It is the hot button topic number one on the larger internet, from what I can tell.

  “Either the ministry made an honest mistake or the the statistical analysis did” does not seem like the kind of statement most people will agree on.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 22:03 UTC

  5 points

  0

  in reply to: Brendan Long’s comment on: “How the Gaza Health Ministry Fakes Ca­su­alty Num­bers”

  Link. (General motte content warning: this is a forum which has strong free speech norms, which disproportionally attracts people who would find it hard to voice their opinions elsewhere. On a bad day you will read five paragraphs of a comment on the war in Gaza only to realize that this is just the introduction the author’s main pet topic of holocaust denial. Also, content warning: discussion is meh.)

  I am not sure it is the one I remember reading, not that I remember the discussion much. I normally read the CW thread, and vaguely remember the link going to twitter. Perhaps I misremember, or the CW post was deleted by its author, or they have changed reality again.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 15:26 UTC

  2 points

  0

  on: Med­i­cal Roundup #2

  Regarding assisted suicide, the realistic alternative in the case of the 28 year old would not be that she would live unhappily ever after. The alternative is an an unilateral suicide attempt by her.

  Unilateral suicide attempts impose additional costs on society. The patient can rarely communicate their decision to anyone close to them beforehand because any confidant might have them locked up in psychiatry instead. The lack of ability to talk about any particulars with someone who knows her real identity^[1], especially their therapist, will in turn mean that plenty of patients who could be dissuaded will not be dissuaded.

  There is a direct cost of suicide attempts to society. Methods vary by ease of access, lethality, painfulness and impact on bystanders. Given that society defects against them by refusing to respect their choices regarding their continued existence, some patients will reciprocate and not optimize for a lack of traumatization of bystanders. Imagine being a conductor of any kind of train spotting someone lying on the tracks and knowing that you will never stop the train in time. For their loved ones, losing someone to suicide without advance warning also is a bad outcome.

  I would argue that every unilateral suicide attempt normalizes further such attempts.^[2] While I believe that suicide is part of a fundamental right, I also think that not pushing that idea to vulnerable populations (like lovesick teenagers) is probably a good thing. Reading that a 28yo was medically killed at the end of a long medical intervention process will probably normalize suicide in the mind of a teenager than reading that she jumped from a tall building somewhere.

  Of course, medically assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions could also be a carrot to dangle in front of patients to incentivize them to participate in mental health interventions. Given that these interventions are somewhat effective, death would not have to be the default outcome. And working with patients who are there out of their free will is probably more effective than working with whatever fraction of patients survived their previous attempt and got committed for a week or a month. (Of course, I think it is important to communicate the outcome odds clearly beforehand: “after one year of interventions, two out of five patients no longer wanted to die, one only wanted to die some of the time and was denied, one dropped out of treatment and was denied and one was assisted in their suicide.” People need that info to make an informed choice!)

  1. ^

     Realistically, I would not even bet on being able to have a frank discussion with a suicide hotline. Given that they are medical professionals, they may be required by law to try their best to prevent suicides up to and including alerting law enforcement, and phone calls are not very anonymous per default.

  2. ^

     Assisted suicides would not necessarily legitimize unilateral suicide attempts. People can be willing to accept a thing when regulated by the state and still be against it otherwise. States collecting taxes does not legitimize protection rackets.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 14:04 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: abstractapplic’s comment on: Med­i­cal Roundup #2

  Anecdata: I have in my freezer deep-frozen cake which has been there fore months. If it was in the fridge (and thus ready to eat) I would eat a piece every time I open the fridge. But I have no compulsion to further the unhealthy eating habits of future me, let that schmuck eat a proper meal instead!

  Ice cream I eat directly from the freezer, so that effect is not there for me.

• quiet_NaN 12 Apr 2024 13:51 UTC

  3 points

  0

  on: “How the Gaza Health Ministry Fakes Ca­su­alty Num­bers”

  The appropriate lesswrong-adjacent-adjacent place to post this would be the culture war thread of the motte. I think a tweet making similar claims was discussed there before.

  I have some hot takes on this but this is not the place for them.

• quiet_NaN 11 Apr 2024 17:31 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: The Poker The­ory of Poker Night

  Thanks, this is interesting.

  From my understanding, in no-limit games, one would want to only have some fraction of ones bankroll in chips on the table, so that one can re-buy after losing an all-in bluff. (I would guess that this fraction should be determined by the Kelly criterion or something.)

  On the other hand, from browsing Wikipedia, it seems like many poker tournaments prohibit or limit re-buying after going bust. This would indicate that one has limited amounts of opportunity to get familiar with the strategy of the opponents (which could very well change once the stakes change).

  (Of course, Kelly is kind of brutal with regard to gambling. In a zero sum game, the average edge is zero, so at least one participant should not be playing even from an EV perspective. But even under the generous assumption that you are 50% more likely than chance to win a 50 participant elimination tournament (e.g. because a third of the participants are actively trying to lose) (so your EV is 0.5 the buy-in) Kelly tells you to wager about 1% of your bankroll. So if the buy-in is 10k$ you would have to be a millionaire.)