this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
40 points (79.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43760 readers
1090 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's actually more like choosing the strategy with the relatively best worst-case scenario, in general. In zero-sum games it turns into what you're describing.

But either way, yeah, that's not what OP means.

[โ€“] AdNecrias@lemmy.pt 1 points 2 months ago

But it's a specific best worst case : it's not only about how best you can do for yourself, it's for how far from you the opponent is. You prefer'd a -1 -100 option over a +2 +1 in minmaxing. While you'd take the second in a maximizing strategy, if there wasn't a third option thatd be like +3 +20. All that being your reward, opponent reward.

That's what I want to transmit to folks reading us.