Re:People may know the best decision and not make it: study
by darkerside on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @11:17AM
(#22935647)
This presupposes that past performance predicts future results. In a world where we have incomplete information and a limited timeframe to assess relative to the universe of possibilities (the real world), a 60% chance is effectively indistinguishable from a coin flip. Once you introduce the possibility of an antagonistic opponent who might flip the odds at any given time, and account for the early mover's advantage of being first to adapt to new information, acting on what's always worked in the past starts to look naive.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:People may know the best decision and not make it: study
by skat20phys on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @01:08PM
(#22936900)
I also think the random deviation from "best" strategy isn't realistic.
In the real world, true randomness is kind of unusual. There's usually some kind of spatial or temporal autocorrelation.
So something might change in a quasi-random way, but it often doesn't just return to "normal" immediately. There's often something continuing (like an antagonist, or some environmental variable that decays over time, but slowly).
So these random "blips" do happen in reality, but they're not normal. What's more normal is for there to be changes, and for those changes to be somewhat, but not completely, stable with some decay. They might not decay at all.