You’re confusing meta strategies and strategies. The best meta strategy might be implementing strategies that do not have the highest chance of succeeding, simply because you can use the information you gain to choose the actual best strategy when it matters.
Consider the case where you’re trying to roll a die many times and get the most green sides coming up, and you can choose between a die that has 3 green sides, and one that probably (p = 0.9) has 2 green sides, but might (p = 0.1) have 4 green sides. If the game lasts 1 roll, you chose the first die. If the game lasts many many rolls, you chose the other die until you’re convinced that it only has 2 green sides- even though this is expected to lose in the short term.
Both those courses of action with dice sound like strategies to me, not meta strategies. Could you give another example of something you’d consider a meta strategy?
I think there’s a larger point lurking here, which is that a good strategy should, in general, provide for gathering information so it can adapt. Do you agree?
Both those courses of action with dice sound like strategies to me, not meta strategies. Could you give another example of something you’d consider a meta strategy?
I might be able to clarify the example. The strategy for one roll is the die with 3 green sides. The strategy for multiple rolls is not the same as repeating the strategy for one roll multiple times. That being said, I do not know if that qualifies as a meta-strategy.
A more typical example could be a Rock-Paper-Scissors game. Against a random player, the game-theory optimal is to pick randomly amongst the three choices. Against your cousin Bob who is known to always picks Rock, picking Paper is the better option. Using knowledge from outside the game lets you win against Bob because you are using a meta-strategy. See also, Wikipedia’s article on Metagaming.
So really, a meta strategy would be something like choosing your deck for a Magic tournament based on what types of decks you expect your opponents to use. While the non-meta strategy would be your efforts to win within a game once it’s started.
Ah, crap. Was that my comment? Sorry. I keep deleting comments when it looks like no one has responded.
But, yeah, Magic has a rather intense meta-game. The reason I deleted my comment was because I realized I had no idea where the meta-strategy was in the dice example so I assumed I missed something. I could be chasing down the wrong definition.
Ah, crap. Was that my comment? Sorry. I keep deleting comments when it looks like no one has responded.
...and that’s why you really shouldn’t delete a comment unless you think it’s doing great harm. You may be worrying a bit too much about what others here think about every comment you make, when it’s in fact somewhat random whether anyone replies to a given comment.
Also, I believe that deleting a comment does not dissipate any negative karma that it has already earned you.
This is correct.
I do not delete to avoid the karma hit, I delete to drop the number of comments in a thread. If two other people say the same thing there was no reason for me to say it.
In this case, I realized immediately after I posted the comment that I probably had not done justice to the entire thread, so I deleted it. I find the clutter annoying and if I can voluntarily take my comment out of the path I am happy to do so.
Unfortunately, this apparently does not work because two people have responded before I could delete a comment. So, deleting does not work well and now I know. Next strategy to try, just editing with a sentence saying “Ignore me”? What is the community consensus on this subject? Just leave the comment alone?
It would be neat if there was a way to just hit my own comment with −4 and get it off of people’s radar.
You’re confusing meta strategies and strategies. The best meta strategy might be implementing strategies that do not have the highest chance of succeeding, simply because you can use the information you gain to choose the actual best strategy when it matters.
Consider the case where you’re trying to roll a die many times and get the most green sides coming up, and you can choose between a die that has 3 green sides, and one that probably (p = 0.9) has 2 green sides, but might (p = 0.1) have 4 green sides. If the game lasts 1 roll, you chose the first die. If the game lasts many many rolls, you chose the other die until you’re convinced that it only has 2 green sides- even though this is expected to lose in the short term.
Both those courses of action with dice sound like strategies to me, not meta strategies. Could you give another example of something you’d consider a meta strategy?
I think there’s a larger point lurking here, which is that a good strategy should, in general, provide for gathering information so it can adapt. Do you agree?
I might be able to clarify the example. The strategy for one roll is the die with 3 green sides. The strategy for multiple rolls is not the same as repeating the strategy for one roll multiple times. That being said, I do not know if that qualifies as a meta-strategy.
A more typical example could be a Rock-Paper-Scissors game. Against a random player, the game-theory optimal is to pick randomly amongst the three choices. Against your cousin Bob who is known to always picks Rock, picking Paper is the better option. Using knowledge from outside the game lets you win against Bob because you are using a meta-strategy. See also, Wikipedia’s article on Metagaming.
That does indeed help. Thank you.
So really, a meta strategy would be something like choosing your deck for a Magic tournament based on what types of decks you expect your opponents to use. While the non-meta strategy would be your efforts to win within a game once it’s started.
Ah, crap. Was that my comment? Sorry. I keep deleting comments when it looks like no one has responded.
But, yeah, Magic has a rather intense meta-game. The reason I deleted my comment was because I realized I had no idea where the meta-strategy was in the dice example so I assumed I missed something. I could be chasing down the wrong definition.
...and that’s why you really shouldn’t delete a comment unless you think it’s doing great harm. You may be worrying a bit too much about what others here think about every comment you make, when it’s in fact somewhat random whether anyone replies to a given comment.
Also, I believe that deleting a comment does not dissipate any negative karma that it has already earned you.
This is correct.
I do not delete to avoid the karma hit, I delete to drop the number of comments in a thread. If two other people say the same thing there was no reason for me to say it.
In this case, I realized immediately after I posted the comment that I probably had not done justice to the entire thread, so I deleted it. I find the clutter annoying and if I can voluntarily take my comment out of the path I am happy to do so.
Unfortunately, this apparently does not work because two people have responded before I could delete a comment. So, deleting does not work well and now I know. Next strategy to try, just editing with a sentence saying “Ignore me”? What is the community consensus on this subject? Just leave the comment alone?
It would be neat if there was a way to just hit my own comment with −4 and get it off of people’s radar.