I was thinking about the same thing. I was also thinking, about the drive to not give up and fail vs cash in your sunk cost. How do you balance that dilemma? Can you turn things around, and confidently push on to see it through... The whole risk-taking ability comes into question. I wish this video evaluated this argument.
knowing when to quit, knowing when to concede "defeat" and ask for help, knowing when to say I was wrong - no one likes to lose and it's almost harder to lose than to concede victory
Gut feeling has been proven as a way to communicate with the vast unconscious mind which is like a supercomputer. My father went from extreme poverty to multi-millionaire and one of the reasons I couldn't replicate was he made his decisions without even knowing why. He just found himself unable to do something sometimes like he just knew it was wrong and couldn't do it. He seemed to be incredibly lucky but you don't get lucky almost everytime without some unexplained reason. There were a lot of factors of course. Number one without a doubt was actually the number 1 rule poker. BRM BANKROLL MANAGEMENT. He aimed to save his entire weeks wages and work overtime for "pocket money" . Can't emphasize this enough to young people who hate the idea. In poker a good rule was if you had €100 you can play a €1 game. The odds of going bust are impossible if you stick to this. Obviously in real life you invest most of your bank roll and aim for 20¢% or above if you saved your weeks wages and got a low return like 20 percent you'd have over 100k bankroll in 3 years. With that much to play with you would be a millionaire from just an average wage in between 5to 10 years. Easier said than done of cours. I had a Brazilian working for me in expensive Ireland who earned 480 a week on minimum wage 6 days a week and lived off 20€ . He earned the price of a fine home in Brazil in 2 years. Around 50k. If he rented it in Brazil where interest rates for mortgages were 17% it would have paid for itself in 7 years but property trebled as we predicted so those are just some fascinating ways of seeing how we can build for the future but it always perplexed me as people who lived this way never got to enjoy their money. They became like Warren buffet. Living frugal life as a billionaire!? I don't get it
To summarize : 1. What can we do that would result in more benefits and less drawbacks of the both parties? 2. If you are sure that putting your money from now on in the current hand (poker example) will result in more loss, you should stop playing. This is Sunk Cost Fallacy. 3. Third one works when you are competing against a strong opponent. What can you do which can minimize your maximum loss. This is called Minimax.
I think a more detailed video would be marvelous. Because what was just here assumes that at least one of the opponents is minimizing the maximum loss. However, what if the opponent's intention is not to win or not to minimize the losses. I know the theory is more detailed than that. This is why I am recommending a detailed video. Thanks for the ideas you bring to the table.
I thought they would talk about the paper,rock, scissors. I'm pretty much a failure in life due to my circumstances of course lol. I just want to brag that I won the first three poker tournaments I played. I'm a treble champ in the casino . I found out after the 2nd game I beat the best guy in the country at that variant (Omaha) after the game. The sunk cost fallacy is very strange as in poker the option to put in the remainder of your chips is decided by pot odds ie you have a 90% chance of losing aka 9to1 of winning and the pot is 9000 and you have 3000 chips left then you need 9to3aka 3to1 to break even. Which is easily converted to 25%(3 + 1)=4 and 1 is 25% of 4. Putting all your chips in equals a fishy 15% loss of 3000 as you will only win 10% putting in 25%of the pot. So whatever fallacy she called it is a losing strategy. She must be lucky or maybe her looks and accent put the players on tilt . Don't send her to Russia as Putin will not fall for her bluffs
I dont think BigThink produces detailed video, not for free atleast. There are few course on game theory on Coursera which is more comprehensive. Ive started with basic one there, its good
Aki Elokl: It is clear to me you have a much better grasp of Game Theory than I ever will... so I have to ask: what opponent has the intention not to win or not to minimize loss. Can you give me an example to understand what you mean? Thank you for your time.
@@macforme for instance, a trivial example your opponent maybe playing to lose. i didn't say this is a sane strategy. However, if you're playing poker for instance and your opponent is playing to lose that would ruin your calculation that he wanted to win. the jest of my comment is you don't have the same constraints all the time.
My minor was Game Theory during my Economics bachelor's. I added political economy as my elective (also mostly game theory). Can be extremely frustrating and counter intuitive at times, still worth it. I learned a lot, also applicable to daily life.
I would add on to the looking for a win/win between 2 parties to include a 3rd party. There is always a 3rd party, or more that will be effected by this decision. This certainly adds more complexity to a negotiation, but if done so, you could come out with a better agreement that benefits even more parties. This might mean you might be taking home 'less' out of a deal. But this is best for everyone and you should see that as being part of the reward as well.
A situation similar to that is in OPEC (a list of 13 countries that produce oil) where they have an agreed upon amount of oil they must produce in an annual basis. Though since it’s impossible for all 13 countries to cooperate they produce more than the agreed upon amount, minimizing damages while maximizing profit since if they underproduce their fellow OPEC members it minimizes profit and actually helps gain profit for the other countries.
The tic-tac-toe example of the Minimax strategy would be better suited if the end game was a tie, I think. Because right now it doesn't look like minimizing losses, but maximizing winning lol.
You are too generous. The tic-tac-toe example is just plain stupid. It is not an example of minimaxing at all. As any fool can see there is one way of winning right away and all other moves lose with the next O in the middle. To be charitable, maybe the guy was tired. More likely he was overwhelmed by the brain rot that has already destroyed the mind anyone who thinks that being a genius on TH-cam is a worthwhile ambition.
3 game theory 1. In zero-sum game. You should lose nothing but maybe you can achieve something. Minize losses. 2. You should think it is okay to get out something that you been working so long. Because when you keep working on in, maybe you will be loss more than before. 3. In such moment, think what the best way is to get out from the problem and win.
Great vid. It’s also interesting how it works with multiple parties involved since the higher number involved the chances of lower cooperation. For example with OPEC (13 oil country exporters) where they have guidelines annually to produce a certain amount of oil in order to maintain a certain price. Though most of the countries, if not all, produce a slightly higher amount than agreed upon to minimize damages in case the other members decide to produce over the agreed upon amount. Game theory in general is complex and can be probably be discussed about in depth for hours.
This could be a much shorter video. It comes down to one concept: in zero sum games, seek to minimize your maximum loss. Since they don't expand on that ultimate point, that is really it for this video.
Agree. Sunk cost fallacy was off topic, and they didn't really explain non-zero-sum games. I think one of the biggest problems with game theory, is that many will watch a video like this, then focus on defeating their opponent, not realizing that they're actually in a non-zero-sum game, and should be working together.
Minimax strategy: apply this to your real life! That’s how my brain works. I always think “what’s the worst thing that can possibly happen in this scenario” and work out problems in my head before they potentially happen.
Depends on situation but 3 keys : never lose your character ; never grasp more than task ( don't bite more than we can chew ) ; remember what if we don't die
Elegant theory. This was a turning point in my rehabilitation. I suffered a very bad Traumatic Brain Injury and I have sunk to the lowest of low. I started to appreciate every day a lot more after I died. For the last 8 years of my life, I saw some deep shit. That mmmade me appreciate each breath I take. TRY.
The video explains the basics of game theory, which is a mathematical theory that studies decision-making under conditions of uncertainty over time. It was originally developed in economics to understand economic behavior but was later applied to various fields like biology and international relations. Game theory has shown that interactions that we often think of as zero-sum, or competitive, are not as competitive as they seem, and that mutual cooperation is possible. The video also touches on John von Neumann's development of game theory based on a simplified version of poker and the sunk cost fallacy in decision-making.
Sunk cost fallacy is interesting because obviously there are times where it applies and should be used however how to differentiate between that and perseverance and resilience to adversity or challenge or engaging with things outside of your comfort zone are all constructive and positive things that can have great returns in life for a sense of accomplishment , confidence , new skills sets , fresh perspectives .. I don't think we should always be focused on the value of a return in a task because our forsite and perspective as humans is limited , meaning we may shut ourselves out of something potentially really beneficial . There are plenty of things I regret not sticking at in life because I could not see the value at the time
Game theory results in rule utilitarianism of the selfish without need for morality. Simplified Game Theory Steps; 1. Betray/ Coop (one side takes advantage of the other, "fool me once") 2. Betray/ Betray (both sides fight, better than being abused, "fool me twice") 3. Coop/ Coop (both sides coop, even if they hate each other, because better than fighting)
Kinda like Ukraine and Russia right now. But which side is depleting which side here? Russia depleting Ukraine’s weapons or Ukrainian depleting Russia’s soldiers?
@@chowsquid Ukraine will keep getting weapons from allied countries, so I'm inclined to say Russia will deplete first. You can mass produce weapons, but you can't mass produce soldiers.
In game theory add in the element of perspective of AQAL and you have true open minded and open ended thinking. So build on self, outside, societal, religious, etc... perspectives when putting together a game.
It's a double edge sword; A dumb person thinking that they don't want to finish what they started versus an intelligent person thinking that they are wasting time if they continue.
Like persevering in a bad relationship for all your life versus accepting the fact and negotiating how to quit with a win-win potential for each to develop new relationships.
thanks.. how does this apply to stock market trading? trading is a game involves multiple players all wanted to win at any point in time within a day on a particular stock/few stocks. means what is the strategic moves to win? cut losses sure, but still losses. to win, how to win using game theory mindset?
So, while you're thinking about the outcomes that will be good for both parties, the other party unfortunately is thinking about the outcomes that will be good for themselves, now how you deal with that? See, from your angle, the best outcome will be the both of you getting what you all want, and the worst outcome will be the other party getting what they want and you get nothing. But, from the other party's angle however, the best outcome will be them getting exactly what they want and the worst outcome will be both of you getting what you all want. Now which position between these two is better?
The secret is you both have to agree at the beginning to look for mutual gain. You listen their side and try to understand them and in turn they listen to you and try to understand you. Then you focus on some objective goals that you both can agree on and try to create as many solutions as possible. If a win-win scenario is not possible you default to a no-deal situation until you both can find an agreement that benefits everybody. Obviously, some people will try to take advantage of you even if you're trying to create a solution that benefits everyone but you just have to accept that as a cost of doing business. In the long run you'll have better business and interpersonal relationships if you look for mutual gain.
sun cost fallecy is really similar to being patient with your losses in trading, it really costed me a lot of losses due to this and also its the opposite when the price is going up, because i go very impatient thinking that the price is going to crash anytime soon.
I have. Multiple times. I worked in the trades for years, and game theory helped me many times. It's helped me with relationships as well. Probably not in ways that would satisfy you, but it's helped me a lot.
just because you 'dont like something' doesnt mean you quit. when you set out to accomplish something, you have to overcome many obstacles to complete it. one of these obstacle could indeed be yourself. you telling yourself that you dont like it, is just an excuse to quit. if you set out to do something, finish it.
Turkey is experiencing an huge disaster right now and our people need your help. Tens thousands people died, hundreds thousands of people has injured after the 2 enormous earthquakes happened. Millions of people can not enter their houses and some of them are at risk of hypothermia and dying of thirst. Please like and pin this comment to reach more people 🙏🏻 Thank you all who pray and help us ❤️
Should I give up my research in Reinforcement learning, or should I keep up sunking cost but do prevail some day? It not it about dedication and perseverance?
That depends. Do you have objective reason to believe that it will succeed, or is there a strong chance of failure? If there's a good chance (evidence backed) of success, then yes its about perseverance. If the opposite is true, then its sunk cost. Keep in mind that you define success.
@@ChristopherRoss. Defining success is nonsense. If I am big dreamer and I want to be top most famous specialist or influencer or businessman thinking of RL as a futur of mankind, why cannot I think of this as success and why should I lower my bar. To be honest, I did not do any result during my 3 year unfinished PhD. Is that backed failure? But I do not have miterally anytjing else in my life to think as something valuable. It feels destroying my world to think I cannot achieve that highly ambitious goal.
@@АндрейКвасов Sounds to me like you have already defined success. Great, now you can determine if its sunk cost or not. All I was saying is that if your goal was to finish the research (I don't know anything about it, so forgive me if I'm misspeaking), but level of recognition or fame and fortune mean nothing to you, then that changes the parameters of whether or not its sunk cost. Transversely If you want as many citations as possible, then that also changes the parameters of sunk cost. That's two different definitions of success. In the end, its up to you what you want the outcome of your endeavors to be, and then measure your likelihood of achieving those outcomes.
Regards to PhD. And yet, she would feel better had she finished it. Quitting a PhD isn't sunk cost, it's giving up. If you're 5 years in out of a 6 year program, what is the cost to you of quitting and what is the cost to remain. In the phd case at 5 or 6 years, I'd love to hear how she evaluates the cost to continue. I BELIEVE SHE MISCALCULATED. I think she used this so called fallacy to apply where it doesn't.
@@francescocarelli6090 you don't have to be. If you get 1000 to 1 odds of Ukraine kicking Russia out of Europe you need to get investers who don't care about losing a few hundred K. Even tho a stalemate is possibly more likely. It's roughly 50/50 but too touchy a subject so let's talk about red and black in roulette. 50Percent of time you get the money invested minus the big chunk they take. Best poker players in the world still do this for sanity sake. They have backers
i lost a hand really hard to lost, i was all in, i knew i was correct, the oponet won me with a full house, then i make the math and the probability was 1 of 1050, 0.095%, that was bananas xD
I apply the sunk cost fallacy to watching new shows/movies. If you can't hook me within the first or 2nd episode, or within the first 15 mins of a movie, I'm out and onto the next one.
"they are trying to do the best they can." So, some people's 'the best they can' have a meaning of following stupid TikTok challenge, especially a lethal challenge one. Hopefully they can get their Darwin Award as a reward.
"Minimizing your maximum loss" As a trader, these are the most important words when dealing with risk management.
cut losses!!!! tough tough decision..
Yes, and isn't "maximum drawdown" or drawdown the finance term for biggest single loss?
Since you are an options trader i presume that you know all about brownian motion?
i thought the exact same thing - risk management and psychology makes up 95% of trading
Still, the strategy to minimizing maximal loss lose in the long run.
The sunk cost fallacy also applies to relationships.
I was thinking about the same thing. I was also thinking, about the drive to not give up and fail vs cash in your sunk cost. How do you balance that dilemma? Can you turn things around, and confidently push on to see it through...
The whole risk-taking ability comes into question. I wish this video evaluated this argument.
knowing when to quit, knowing when to concede "defeat" and ask for help, knowing when to say I was wrong - no one likes to lose and it's almost harder to lose than to concede victory
oh I guess I'll be ditching your mum then.
Gut feeling has been proven as a way to communicate with the vast unconscious mind which is like a supercomputer. My father went from extreme poverty to multi-millionaire and one of the reasons I couldn't replicate was he made his decisions without even knowing why. He just found himself unable to do something sometimes like he just knew it was wrong and couldn't do it. He seemed to be incredibly lucky but you don't get lucky almost everytime without some unexplained reason. There were a lot of factors of course. Number one without a doubt was actually the number 1 rule poker. BRM BANKROLL MANAGEMENT. He aimed to save his entire weeks wages and work overtime for "pocket money" . Can't emphasize this enough to young people who hate the idea. In poker a good rule was if you had €100 you can play a €1 game. The odds of going bust are impossible if you stick to this. Obviously in real life you invest most of your bank roll and aim for 20¢% or above if you saved your weeks wages and got a low return like 20 percent you'd have over 100k bankroll in 3 years. With that much to play with you would be a millionaire from just an average wage in between 5to 10 years. Easier said than done of cours. I had a Brazilian working for me in expensive Ireland who earned 480 a week on minimum wage 6 days a week and lived off 20€ . He earned the price of a fine home in Brazil in 2 years. Around 50k. If he rented it in Brazil where interest rates for mortgages were 17% it would have paid for itself in 7 years but property trebled as we predicted so those are just some fascinating ways of seeing how we can build for the future but it always perplexed me as people who lived this way never got to enjoy their money. They became like Warren buffet. Living frugal life as a billionaire!? I don't get it
definitely, 'I've been with her so long might as well just stick it out' - it's human nature I think
To summarize :
1. What can we do that would result in more benefits and less drawbacks of the both parties?
2. If you are sure that putting your money from now on in the current hand (poker example) will result in more loss, you should stop playing. This is Sunk Cost Fallacy.
3. Third one works when you are competing against a strong opponent. What can you do which can minimize your maximum loss. This is called Minimax.
but what if I wanna miximize my minimax in the mamimum loss minimaxing..
I think a more detailed video would be marvelous. Because what was just here assumes that at least one of the opponents is minimizing the maximum loss. However, what if the opponent's intention is not to win or not to minimize the losses. I know the theory is more detailed than that. This is why I am recommending a detailed video. Thanks for the ideas you bring to the table.
I thought they would talk about the paper,rock, scissors.
I'm pretty much a failure in life due to my circumstances of course lol. I just want to brag that I won the first three poker tournaments I played. I'm a treble champ in the casino . I found out after the 2nd game I beat the best guy in the country at that variant (Omaha) after the game. The sunk cost fallacy is very strange as in poker the option to put in the remainder of your chips is decided by pot odds ie you have a 90% chance of losing aka 9to1 of winning and the pot is 9000 and you have 3000 chips left then you need 9to3aka 3to1 to break even. Which is easily converted to 25%(3 + 1)=4 and 1 is 25% of 4. Putting all your chips in equals a fishy 15% loss of 3000 as you will only win 10% putting in 25%of the pot. So whatever fallacy she called it is a losing strategy. She must be lucky or maybe her looks and accent put the players on tilt . Don't send her to Russia as Putin will not fall for her bluffs
I dont think BigThink produces detailed video, not for free atleast. There are few course on game theory on Coursera which is more comprehensive. Ive started with basic one there, its good
Aki Elokl: It is clear to me you have a much better grasp of Game Theory than I ever will... so I have to ask: what opponent has the intention not to win or not to minimize loss. Can you give me an example to understand what you mean? Thank you for your time.
@@macforme for instance, a trivial example your opponent maybe playing to lose. i didn't say this is a sane strategy. However, if you're playing poker for instance and your opponent is playing to lose that would ruin your calculation that he wanted to win. the jest of my comment is you don't have the same constraints all the time.
@@thegreatloll Well there's my answer.... I am so clueless about this theory I didn't even pick up on the sarcasm.🤣
My minor was Game Theory during my Economics bachelor's. I added political economy as my elective (also mostly game theory). Can be extremely frustrating and counter intuitive at times, still worth it. I learned a lot, also applicable to daily life.
That sunk cost fallacy hits hard...
Why exactly? This belief is exactly what she describes as destructive/ flawed...😉
@@xyzv8640 Try being married for 20 years to the wrong person and you’ll see what the original post means
I’m an attorney. The minny-max strategy is something litigators always do.
game theory is the most interesting concept in microeconomics in my opinion
I would add on to the looking for a win/win between 2 parties to include a 3rd party. There is always a 3rd party, or more that will be effected by this decision. This certainly adds more complexity to a negotiation, but if done so, you could come out with a better agreement that benefits even more parties. This might mean you might be taking home 'less' out of a deal. But this is best for everyone and you should see that as being part of the reward as well.
This is a really interesting point. Could you please share a scenario example?
A situation similar to that is in OPEC (a list of 13 countries that produce oil) where they have an agreed upon amount of oil they must produce in an annual basis. Though since it’s impossible for all 13 countries to cooperate they produce more than the agreed upon amount, minimizing damages while maximizing profit since if they underproduce their fellow OPEC members it minimizes profit and actually helps gain profit for the other countries.
But that’s just a theory, a GAME THEORY!
Thanks for watching
Thanks for making me laugh.
Thanks for being dumb
The tic-tac-toe example of the Minimax strategy would be better suited if the end game was a tie, I think. Because right now it doesn't look like minimizing losses, but maximizing winning lol.
My thoughts exactly.
Ok pumpkin! Your NO John Nash girlfriend
"Shall we play a game?" - War Games
You are too generous. The tic-tac-toe example is just plain stupid. It is not an example of minimaxing at all. As any fool can see there is one way of winning right away and all other moves lose with the next O in the middle.
To be charitable, maybe the guy was tired.
More likely he was overwhelmed by the brain rot that has already destroyed the mind anyone who thinks that being a genius on TH-cam is a worthwhile ambition.
Appear strong when your weak,appear weak when your strong ~Poker zu
3 game theory
1. In zero-sum game. You should lose nothing but maybe you can achieve something. Minize losses.
2. You should think it is okay to get out something that you been working so long. Because when you keep working on in, maybe you will be loss more than before.
3. In such moment, think what the best way is to get out from the problem and win.
but hey thats just a theory a game theory
Great vid. It’s also interesting how it works with multiple parties involved since the higher number involved the chances of lower cooperation. For example with OPEC (13 oil country exporters) where they have guidelines annually to produce a certain amount of oil in order to maintain a certain price. Though most of the countries, if not all, produce a slightly higher amount than agreed upon to minimize damages in case the other members decide to produce over the agreed upon amount. Game theory in general is complex and can be probably be discussed about in depth for hours.
don't they just get punished if they over produce? so its just a mafia situtiation
I used to think that I am ultra defensive,but now I know I have been following minimax strategy, unknowingly though.
This could be a much shorter video. It comes down to one concept: in zero sum games, seek to minimize your maximum loss. Since they don't expand on that ultimate point, that is really it for this video.
Agree. Sunk cost fallacy was off topic, and they didn't really explain non-zero-sum games. I think one of the biggest problems with game theory, is that many will watch a video like this, then focus on defeating their opponent, not realizing that they're actually in a non-zero-sum game, and should be working together.
Minimax strategy: apply this to your real life! That’s how my brain works. I always think “what’s the worst thing that can possibly happen in this scenario” and work out problems in my head before they potentially happen.
Can we just take a moment to acknowledge how Big Thinks always brings us high quality videos?
Sometimes
you talk like a bot
That’s a joke. Their channel is entirely clickbait and how to get experts to say words without saying anything.
@@olafcreed4726 That's your opinion.
npc comment
Short, detailed to the point and incredibly beneficial
Good stuff
Depends on situation but 3 keys : never lose your character ; never grasp more than task ( don't bite more than we can chew ) ; remember what if we don't die
Very nicely narrated and scripted. Amazing and Quite Informative video ❤
Elegant theory. This was a turning point in my rehabilitation.
I suffered a very bad Traumatic Brain Injury and I have sunk to the lowest of low. I started to appreciate every day a lot more after I died.
For the last 8 years of my life, I saw some deep shit. That mmmade me appreciate each breath I take.
TRY.
Special force?
The video explains the basics of game theory, which is a mathematical theory that studies decision-making under conditions of uncertainty over time. It was originally developed in economics to understand economic behavior but was later applied to various fields like biology and international relations. Game theory has shown that interactions that we often think of as zero-sum, or competitive, are not as competitive as they seem, and that mutual cooperation is possible. The video also touches on John von Neumann's development of game theory based on a simplified version of poker and the sunk cost fallacy in decision-making.
a part of humanity remains fixated on givin fancy names to common sense
Sunk cost fallacy is interesting because obviously there are times where it applies and should be used however how to differentiate between that and perseverance and resilience to adversity or challenge or engaging with things outside of your comfort zone are all constructive and positive things that can have great returns in life for a sense of accomplishment , confidence , new skills sets , fresh perspectives .. I don't think we should always be focused on the value of a return in a task because our forsite and perspective as humans is limited , meaning we may shut ourselves out of something potentially really beneficial . There are plenty of things I regret not sticking at in life because I could not see the value at the time
Game theory results in rule utilitarianism of the selfish without need for morality.
Simplified Game Theory Steps;
1. Betray/ Coop (one side takes advantage of the other, "fool me once")
2. Betray/ Betray (both sides fight, better than being abused, "fool me twice")
3. Coop/ Coop (both sides coop, even if they hate each other, because better than fighting)
Its only a theory a GAME THEORY
You realise what your saying that? It's a theory and not a "hypothesis" or anecdotal evidence!
@@dinshak86 am just quoting mat pad
I rather apply sunk cost fallacy on a relationship rather than the on a bad investment I've made.
you have the choice to not commit on either
2:30 What outcome can be good for both parties?
5:55 Zero sum game
But that’s just a theory
A GAME THEORY!
Imagine two friends read the same book, use the same tactic. It would be a tragedy.
Look up 'carrot in a box Sean Lock'. Make sure it is the first game.
It is very entertaining and I think it is an example of Game Theory.
The minmax reminds me of how Rome defeated Hannibal by minimizing their losses and waiting until he ran out of resources.
Kinda like Ukraine and Russia right now. But which side is depleting which side here?
Russia depleting Ukraine’s weapons or Ukrainian depleting Russia’s soldiers?
@@chowsquid Ukraine will keep getting weapons from allied countries, so I'm inclined to say Russia will deplete first. You can mass produce weapons, but you can't mass produce soldiers.
Grit vs Sunk Cost makes life interesting, and also pits us with crossroads, so what is left is not game theory, but gut feeling.
Looking at Boeing & NASA's dilemma with the Starliner & the stranded astronauts, "Sunk Cost Fallacy" comes to mind.
I seriously thought he was going to say “the only winning move is not to play.” Lol
Every thing that says game theory makes me cry because it reminds me that mat pat retired
Using 'Minimizing your maximum loss' perspective, so you can feel win regardless of how great your opponent
In game theory add in the element of perspective of AQAL and you have true open minded and open ended thinking. So build on self, outside, societal, religious, etc... perspectives when putting together a game.
Remember guys this Is a GAME theory
The Sunk Cost Fallacy really hit home.
But thats just a theory,a GAAAAme THEorYY
I thought this would be about the TH-cam channel game theory but great video anywyas
It's a double edge sword; A dumb person thinking that they don't want to finish what they started versus an intelligent person thinking that they are wasting time if they continue.
Funny 😂
Like persevering in a bad relationship for all your life versus accepting the fact and negotiating how to quit with a win-win potential for each to develop new relationships.
The problem with minimax is that people are often not fully logical
thanks.. how does this apply to stock market trading? trading is a game involves multiple players all wanted to win at any point in time within a day on a particular stock/few stocks. means what is the strategic moves to win? cut losses sure, but still losses. to win, how to win using game theory mindset?
this was kind of a nothing video
very important explaination
Now this is high-quality stuff yea!
What about the sunk cost fallacy fallacy?
I love this channel! You all are the best.
Missed this episode. Thanks for uploading!
As a noob trader, this is helpful
I always love watching these video but please use something higher then 1080p for these videos
So, while you're thinking about the outcomes that will be good for both parties, the other party unfortunately is thinking about the outcomes that will be good for themselves, now how you deal with that?
See, from your angle, the best outcome will be the both of you getting what you all want, and the worst outcome will be the other party getting what they want and you get nothing.
But, from the other party's angle however, the best outcome will be them getting exactly what they want and the worst outcome will be both of you getting what you all want.
Now which position between these two is better?
Lol, why cant the outcome they want be good for them and you?
THey getting what they want, doesnt necessary mean nothing for yourself...
.
The secret is you both have to agree at the beginning to look for mutual gain. You listen their side and try to understand them and in turn they listen to you and try to understand you. Then you focus on some objective goals that you both can agree on and try to create as many solutions as possible. If a win-win scenario is not possible you default to a no-deal situation until you both can find an agreement that benefits everybody.
Obviously, some people will try to take advantage of you even if you're trying to create a solution that benefits everyone but you just have to accept that as a cost of doing business. In the long run you'll have better business and interpersonal relationships if you look for mutual gain.
All good, but I don't really think in most case scenarios the ultimate goal of game theory is to have your competitor rubbing your leg. LOL
Veritasium made a video about similar topic years ago, but with a lot better writing and a lot more profounfing insight.
sun cost fallecy is really similar to being patient with your losses in trading, it really costed me a lot of losses due to this and also its the opposite when the price is going up, because i go very impatient thinking that the price is going to crash anytime soon.
Where's MatPat at
Perfect short video, thanks!
Allow me to ask you a question. How many of you have actually used information given by such informational videos?
I have. Multiple times. I worked in the trades for years, and game theory helped me many times.
It's helped me with relationships as well.
Probably not in ways that would satisfy you, but it's helped me a lot.
Do you guys have a podcast?
The sunk cost isn't entirely a fallacy. In the poker example, if you fold, it's a definite loss
just because you 'dont like something' doesnt mean you quit. when you set out to accomplish something, you have to overcome many obstacles to complete it. one of these obstacle could indeed be yourself. you telling yourself that you dont like it, is just an excuse to quit. if you set out to do something, finish it.
You're actually saving my life hahah, Thanks.
Turkey is experiencing an huge disaster right now and our people need your help.
Tens thousands people died, hundreds thousands of people has injured after the 2 enormous earthquakes happened. Millions of people can not enter their houses and some of them are at risk of hypothermia and dying of thirst.
Please like and pin this comment to reach more people 🙏🏻 Thank you all who pray and help us ❤️
I am obsessed with game theory
A game of poker has ZERO uncertainities
But hey, that's just a theory. A GAME THEORY!!!!
Thanks for everything, MatPat. 🥲
The Minimax Strategy is an effective strategy is dealing with the wife. It never about winning, its about losing small.
Should I give up my research in Reinforcement learning, or should I keep up sunking cost but do prevail some day? It not it about dedication and perseverance?
That depends. Do you have objective reason to believe that it will succeed, or is there a strong chance of failure? If there's a good chance (evidence backed) of success, then yes its about perseverance. If the opposite is true, then its sunk cost. Keep in mind that you define success.
@@ChristopherRoss. Defining success is nonsense. If I am big dreamer and I want to be top most famous specialist or influencer or businessman thinking of RL as a futur of mankind, why cannot I think of this as success and why should I lower my bar. To be honest, I did not do any result during my 3 year unfinished PhD. Is that backed failure? But I do not have miterally anytjing else in my life to think as something valuable. It feels destroying my world to think I cannot achieve that highly ambitious goal.
@@АндрейКвасов Sounds to me like you have already defined success. Great, now you can determine if its sunk cost or not.
All I was saying is that if your goal was to finish the research (I don't know anything about it, so forgive me if I'm misspeaking), but level of recognition or fame and fortune mean nothing to you, then that changes the parameters of whether or not its sunk cost. Transversely If you want as many citations as possible, then that also changes the parameters of sunk cost. That's two different definitions of success. In the end, its up to you what you want the outcome of your endeavors to be, and then measure your likelihood of achieving those outcomes.
@@ChristopherRoss. Thank you, I appreciate your thoughts n this!
No mention of John nash?
Tenet style background music vibes.
Leaving this video in between after realising not enjoying the video
Reaching back to pick coals out of a fire is a waste of effort compared to cutting the cord once you know its a loss situation.
What the best text book to learn Game Theory? I’m a data scientist interested in the topic.
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content
And that's a theory, a game theory!
Regards to PhD. And yet, she would feel better had she finished it. Quitting a PhD isn't sunk cost, it's giving up. If you're 5 years in out of a 6 year program, what is the cost to you of quitting and what is the cost to remain. In the phd case at 5 or 6 years, I'd love to hear how she evaluates the cost to continue. I BELIEVE SHE MISCALCULATED. I think she used this so called fallacy to apply where it doesn't.
Wow what an amazing revelation. An epiphany……
No better gift then giving people the experience they are determined to have.
where are the game theory comments
"Just this once - everybody wins!"
"You never going to be 100% certain where you are, whether you are beating them or have a worse hand"
Royal Flush: Enters the chat. . . . .
Or the nuts
In classic poker you can't be certain, because lowest royal flush beats highest, so you can never be 100% sure.
@@francescocarelli6090 you don't have to be. If you get 1000 to 1 odds of Ukraine kicking Russia out of Europe you need to get investers who don't care about losing a few hundred K. Even tho a stalemate is possibly more likely. It's roughly 50/50 but too touchy a subject so let's talk about red and black in roulette. 50Percent of time you get the money invested minus the big chunk they take.
Best poker players in the world still do this for sanity sake. They have backers
No mention of Jonh Forbes Nash Jr.? - How sad...
okay , 6:25 , Tic-Tac-Toe is a bad example , because there is a simple way that the Os will always win or tie.
So this isn’t about poker?
Hello internet! WELCOME TO GAME THEORY
i lost a hand really hard to lost, i was all in, i knew i was correct, the oponet won me with a full house, then i make the math and the probability was 1 of 1050, 0.095%, that was bananas xD
But the probability is higher when someone calls your all in obviously
I apply the sunk cost fallacy to watching new shows/movies. If you can't hook me within the first or 2nd episode, or within the first 15 mins of a movie, I'm out and onto the next one.
Game theory is all about transactional analysis. This psychology has been studied since the 1950's.
Bitcoin brought me here. Giddy up 🚀
"they are trying to do the best they can."
So, some people's 'the best they can' have a meaning of following stupid TikTok challenge, especially a lethal challenge one. Hopefully they can get their Darwin Award as a reward.
Did you really do the best you could with those sentences?
What about Nash?
Music sounds like it comes from the movie Tenet
life is not a zero sum game. But some people treat it like it is.
Very nice ❤
I knew all this just by using common sense and caring to be ethical.
Great tips for trading crypto as well 😄
But you missed the 4th Game Theory, The "Ness is Sans" angle.
But hey! That's just a Theory! A Game Theory!
Thanks for watching!
Kenny Rogers was right all this time.