I'm not even sorry to say this. You just sound like you're salty about not getting the content you imagined getting, even though nowhere in the title does it say anything about economics. Which begs the question : what the hell were you expecting? Super mario is a video game for kids. I can promise you Nintendo didn't waste a single thought about the economy of this made up world when they made it, and here you are claiming that Game Theory fooled you. Absolutely ridiculous. And saying you forgive him is just the cherry on top. There's nothing to forgive. All you're doing is jumping on the hype train of Game Theory by putting it in your title because they get a lot of views at the moment. IF ANYTHING, you're the one clickbaiting people by saying you're "reacting" to the video, while in fact all you do is explain your issues with a very tiny selection of extremely short clips from the actual video. So who's breaking trust here, hm? :) I actually want my watchtime back, this was horrible. TLDR: don't waste your time on this clickbait video, it's just a salty man being salty for the sake of getting views.
Your beef with Game Theory started over game theory making videos on video games where they make theories on video games and not economics content, I'm sorry how anyone would click video called" Super Mario, Pipe Dreams and expect video about economics. how, just how? I'm sorry but that is now what Game Theory is about, also I'm pretty sure that when MatPat says "game theory is everywhere" it is exaggeration. You got some good points but this whole video seems to be made on one sided beef that started by you not understanding what is Game Theory about, because it is a TH-cam channel where they talk about living animatronics possessed by dead children, How soul sand in Minecraft contains souls of fallen people, game theory focuses on the story of the worlds not on their economy, after all it´s not an economy channel it´s lore channel. Also i don´t like how you blame Game Theory for "breaking your trust" you just miss understood what is this about and was disappointed, that happens and it is understandable to be disappointed, i would be too, but blaming Creator for that feels dumb, Sorry.
Look man, I know the grudge thing is all cheeky and whatever but I am actually disappointed in this video. You got me interested with pointing out how MatPat missed a key point in his 'game theory' explanation, where you go ahead and point out that the component missing is "strategic choices", but you fail entirely in arguing for this point and give extremely bad examples that don't actually prove what you mean or explain it at all, and I feel like you wasted my time. Now, I'm all for constructive criticism, so I'm gonna put forth my case. After all, I could also be missing something, I'm only human, as are you, and same for MatPat. After pointing out strategic choice is needed, you do go forward to try to explain what strategic choice is, but you never seal the deal by giving good enough examples. Your examples, in my perspective, are all cases where I wouldn't call that scenario as having "two players". All the examples you gave do have strategic choice or lack thereof, but none of them show two things that are all you needed to prove your point: an example that shows 'game theory' in action with *two players and strategic choice* and then an example that shows a case that *isn't* 'game theory' where there are *two players* but clearly no strategic choice. And without examples showing this, you never finished explaining and proving your point that 'game theory' should be explained with such a caveat. Perhaps the issue is that you yourself would consider the examples you presented as having two players, but in my opinion you failed at showing why we should consider those cases as having two players as opposed to considering them as single player scenarios. And putting my own words to practice, I will try to present my case as to why I think they are single player and not two player scenarios: In all the examples you gave, you specifically chose cases where there is *no interaction* between players. If there is no interaction between players, then the scenario *isn't* a two player scenario. The whole point of a multiplayer game is that the players MUST interact with each other in some way, otherwise single player scenarios simply do not exist, because you can ALWAYS trace every action you make directly or indirectly to another person, either perpendicularly (your action indirectly or directly affecting another) or in parallel (you doing an action that another person somewhere is also doing). There is no game where you are actually entirely isolated, because to exist you must exist in this reality in which we all exist, and every game that exists thus in this reality will involve two or more players in it, if we do not consider interaction as a necessary component to differentiate them. Because if we forgo interaction, both the space and time vectors are irrelevant, there will be a time or a place where someone is performing the same or a similar action to yours, and hence playing the same 'game', or your choice affecting another in the future or at a different location. Interaction instantly forces time and space to matter, because you can't interact directly with anybody that isn't either in your game, but at a different time (equal 'space' but different time) or in both your game and at the same time. Hence, when we talk about a two player game, we must assume we are talking about a game where two players interact directly, otherwise it makes no sense to make such a distinction. I hope I made my case, if not I am also up for criticism. Gotta deal them as you take 'em.
As a last aside, I think your pointing out that "trust" has nothing to do with 'game theory' is misguided. What MatPat was trying to go for in that video when he brought trust into it was just to make a perspective based conclusion on what game theory represents, not a hardcore formal point in which 'trust' is a real metric that affects and actually governs the concept of 'game theory'. It was more of a philosophical take on the whole thing. At least that's how I came out understanding it from watching MatPat's show Game Theory videos since the very first of them came out. Perhaps it is the fact that I have more context of what MatPat is about that led me to this conclusion, and perhaps you interpreted the way you did because you are more of a formal analysis kind of person, where you would assume the showrunner is always being precise and talking about grounded concepts rather than informally delving into more subjective perspective analysis. If I'm right, that's why I think this is misguided. If I had applied the same to your video, I would have taken your "grudge" far more seriously rather than just a cheeky playful joke (not saying your frustration wasn't real, but it is clear you aren't entirely too serious about that grudge). You gotta be able to understand the context of the speaker and keep it in mind when judging what they are presenting. I would never ever take any of the episode's of MatPat's Game Theory as a basis to explain any scientific concept, since MatPat's whole schtick is to introduce his audience to the concepts in an informal manner so that the viewer themselves is prompted to take the next step to actually learn about them properly; not to serve as a textbook for viewers to learn the concepts and their intricacies in one go.
i dont wanna sound rude but i think this video was just pure bait. ether that or idk, i watch it all to make sure im properly inform of what the video has so there no early bias judgement. but i just came out with more confusion on this grudge of his.
Matpat: game theory - making a theory about games but... game theory is mathematics Matpat: theorycrafting - making a theory about a game but.... theorycrafting is mathematically analyzing video games to figure out dominant strategies to more efficiently solve problems provided by video games... Looks like I'm not alone with how I feel about matpat using the terminologies "game theory" and "theorycrafting" lmao
Now I wonder how many others were duped by The Game Theorists... I still remember when I thought I stumbled upon a goldmine of content only to realize it's not of the vein of Neuman and Nash 😅
I dont mean to be pedantic but you also mispronounced John Von Neumann's name. I think it's similar to how people mispronounce Euler's name.
This was a swing and a miss
Absolute beta energy bro
more like omega
I'm not even sorry to say this.
You just sound like you're salty about not getting the content you imagined getting, even though nowhere in the title does it say anything about economics.
Which begs the question : what the hell were you expecting? Super mario is a video game for kids. I can promise you Nintendo didn't waste a single thought about the economy of this made up world when they made it, and here you are claiming that Game Theory fooled you. Absolutely ridiculous.
And saying you forgive him is just the cherry on top. There's nothing to forgive. All you're doing is jumping on the hype train of Game Theory by putting it in your title because they get a lot of views at the moment.
IF ANYTHING, you're the one clickbaiting people by saying you're "reacting" to the video, while in fact all you do is explain your issues with a very tiny selection of extremely short clips from the actual video. So who's breaking trust here, hm? :)
I actually want my watchtime back, this was horrible.
TLDR: don't waste your time on this clickbait video, it's just a salty man being salty for the sake of getting views.
I'm pretty sure the mispronunciation you got mad at was part of the bit
Why are we assuming that economics is the only possible way the words "game theory" could be used for?
Your beef with Game Theory started over game theory making videos on video games where they make theories on video games and not economics content, I'm sorry how anyone would click video called" Super Mario, Pipe Dreams and expect video about economics. how, just how? I'm sorry but that is now what Game Theory is about, also I'm pretty sure that when MatPat says "game theory is everywhere" it is exaggeration. You got some good points but this whole video seems to be made on one sided beef that started by you not understanding what is Game Theory about,
because it is a TH-cam channel where they talk about living animatronics possessed by dead children, How soul sand in Minecraft contains souls of fallen people, game theory focuses on the story of the worlds not on their economy, after all it´s not an economy channel it´s lore channel. Also i don´t like how you blame Game Theory for "breaking your trust" you just miss understood what is this about and was disappointed, that happens and it is understandable to be disappointed, i would be too, but blaming Creator for that feels dumb, Sorry.
But since you decided to act your age and not making useless conflict over your 12 years old mistake, i forgive you. :)
People can name their shows other things.
Look man, I know the grudge thing is all cheeky and whatever but I am actually disappointed in this video. You got me interested with pointing out how MatPat missed a key point in his 'game theory' explanation, where you go ahead and point out that the component missing is "strategic choices", but you fail entirely in arguing for this point and give extremely bad examples that don't actually prove what you mean or explain it at all, and I feel like you wasted my time. Now, I'm all for constructive criticism, so I'm gonna put forth my case. After all, I could also be missing something, I'm only human, as are you, and same for MatPat.
After pointing out strategic choice is needed, you do go forward to try to explain what strategic choice is, but you never seal the deal by giving good enough examples. Your examples, in my perspective, are all cases where I wouldn't call that scenario as having "two players". All the examples you gave do have strategic choice or lack thereof, but none of them show two things that are all you needed to prove your point: an example that shows 'game theory' in action with *two players and strategic choice* and then an example that shows a case that *isn't* 'game theory' where there are *two players* but clearly no strategic choice. And without examples showing this, you never finished explaining and proving your point that 'game theory' should be explained with such a caveat.
Perhaps the issue is that you yourself would consider the examples you presented as having two players, but in my opinion you failed at showing why we should consider those cases as having two players as opposed to considering them as single player scenarios. And putting my own words to practice, I will try to present my case as to why I think they are single player and not two player scenarios:
In all the examples you gave, you specifically chose cases where there is *no interaction* between players. If there is no interaction between players, then the scenario *isn't* a two player scenario. The whole point of a multiplayer game is that the players MUST interact with each other in some way, otherwise single player scenarios simply do not exist, because you can ALWAYS trace every action you make directly or indirectly to another person, either perpendicularly (your action indirectly or directly affecting another) or in parallel (you doing an action that another person somewhere is also doing). There is no game where you are actually entirely isolated, because to exist you must exist in this reality in which we all exist, and every game that exists thus in this reality will involve two or more players in it, if we do not consider interaction as a necessary component to differentiate them. Because if we forgo interaction, both the space and time vectors are irrelevant, there will be a time or a place where someone is performing the same or a similar action to yours, and hence playing the same 'game', or your choice affecting another in the future or at a different location. Interaction instantly forces time and space to matter, because you can't interact directly with anybody that isn't either in your game, but at a different time (equal 'space' but different time) or in both your game and at the same time. Hence, when we talk about a two player game, we must assume we are talking about a game where two players interact directly, otherwise it makes no sense to make such a distinction.
I hope I made my case, if not I am also up for criticism. Gotta deal them as you take 'em.
As a last aside, I think your pointing out that "trust" has nothing to do with 'game theory' is misguided. What MatPat was trying to go for in that video when he brought trust into it was just to make a perspective based conclusion on what game theory represents, not a hardcore formal point in which 'trust' is a real metric that affects and actually governs the concept of 'game theory'. It was more of a philosophical take on the whole thing. At least that's how I came out understanding it from watching MatPat's show Game Theory videos since the very first of them came out.
Perhaps it is the fact that I have more context of what MatPat is about that led me to this conclusion, and perhaps you interpreted the way you did because you are more of a formal analysis kind of person, where you would assume the showrunner is always being precise and talking about grounded concepts rather than informally delving into more subjective perspective analysis. If I'm right, that's why I think this is misguided. If I had applied the same to your video, I would have taken your "grudge" far more seriously rather than just a cheeky playful joke (not saying your frustration wasn't real, but it is clear you aren't entirely too serious about that grudge). You gotta be able to understand the context of the speaker and keep it in mind when judging what they are presenting. I would never ever take any of the episode's of MatPat's Game Theory as a basis to explain any scientific concept, since MatPat's whole schtick is to introduce his audience to the concepts in an informal manner so that the viewer themselves is prompted to take the next step to actually learn about them properly; not to serve as a textbook for viewers to learn the concepts and their intricacies in one go.
i dont wanna sound rude but i think this video was just pure bait. ether that or idk, i watch it all to make sure im properly inform of what the video has so there no early bias judgement. but i just came out with more confusion on this grudge of his.
Austrian economics is better. Change my Mind.
The more you know. Very informative vid, thank you. :)
Matpat: game theory - making a theory about games
but... game theory is mathematics
Matpat: theorycrafting - making a theory about a game
but.... theorycrafting is mathematically analyzing video games to figure out dominant strategies to more efficiently solve problems provided by video games...
Looks like I'm not alone with how I feel about matpat using the terminologies "game theory" and "theorycrafting" lmao
Now I wonder how many others were duped by The Game Theorists... I still remember when I thought I stumbled upon a goldmine of content only to realize it's not of the vein of Neuman and Nash 😅