Life In 19x19

(polite cough)...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ -----------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . O O X . O . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . O O X X O . O X X . X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . O . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . O O X . X O . X . . O . . . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . X O . . . O X . . |
$$ | . O . . X O . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O X X X , X . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O X O . O O O . O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O . . . O X . . X O . X . . |
$$ | . . . . O O X . . . . . O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X . X X X X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . O . . O . O . X . . . |
$$ | . X O X B O O . O X X . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------------------[/go]

@Uberdude:

That is indeed an empty triangle, though not as amusing as mine at move 64 here viewtopic.php?p=196357#p196357.
Running donation total (see viewtopic.php?p=197566#p197566) (I'll pay the total as one go on 13th Feb):
$2.

Uberdude wrote:That is indeed an empty triangle, though not as amusing as mine at move 64 here viewtopic.php?p=196357#p196357.
Running donation total (see viewtopic.php?p=197566#p197566) (I'll pay the total as one go on 13th Feb):
$2.

I thought there was also $1 for every move in the game.

Every move played in the next 30 days, not past moves. And an amusing empty triangle is 2 rather than 1, not 2 as well as 1.

Uberdude wrote:Every move played in the next 30 days, not past moves. And an amusing empty triangle is 2 rather than 1, not 2 as well as 1.

You could provide empty triangle payout as a function of the level of amusement:

Payout = $1 (for the move) + f(A)

where A is a fraction between 0.01 and 1.0 representing your amusement from the empty triangle (0.01 is "meh", and 1.0 is "roflcopter"), and f maps the fraction directly to the corresponding dollar value.

For example, if you'd give the empty triangle 6.3 stars out of 10, the amusement would be 0.63, which is $0.63, for a payout of $1.63.

Lowers the average. If he follows that scheme, he ought to map it onto the interval [0,2] or something, so that the expected average is $1.

hyperpape wrote:Lowers the average. If he follows that scheme, he ought to map it onto the interval [0,2] or something, so that the expected average is $1.

Well, he can donate however he wants - I'm kind of joking.

But if he is going to pay $1 for a move no matter what, and he pays $2 for amusing empty triangles, then I think the expected payout is still between $1 and $2, depending on his sense of amusement.

In other words, let's say an empty triangle is played. Based on what Uberdude has already said, he'll pay at least $1 since he said he'd pay $1 for any move. But he might pay $2 for an "amusing" empty triangle. So the payoff for empty triangle under the current conditions is either $1 (empty triangle, but not amusing), or $2 (empty triangle - and amusing!).

I don't know how easily Uberdude is amused, and I also don't know how many empty triangles are coming up, so it's hard to say what the average expected payoff over time is going to be. But it'll still be between $1 and $2 (inclusive) for a given empty triangle.

The only difference with my scheme is that it allows Uberdude to quantify his amusement more specifically - it's not just "yes, amusing" or "no, not amusing", he can specify varying degrees of "somewhat amusing"...

I have a feeling I have too much free time today. I guess it's Friday.

Kirby wrote:...
I have a feeling I have too much free time today. I guess it's Friday.

Please allow me to relieve you of that problem: viewtopic.php?p=197425#p197425

Kirby wrote:Well, he can donate however he wants - I'm kind of joking.

Well, I'm deadly serious, and you're wrong. He made a commitment, and I think your proposal doesn't fulfill the letter or the spirit of it! He said $2 for an empty triangle. I'll compromise, and accept a sliding scale with an average of $2, but nothing less.

hyperpape wrote:Well, I'm deadly serious, and you're wrong. He made a commitment, and I think your proposal doesn't fulfill the letter or the spirit of it! He said $2 for an empty triangle. I'll compromise, and accept a sliding scale with an average of $2, but nothing less.

As much as I'd like to be wrong, that's not what he said; he said that he'd pay $2 for an amusing empty triangle:

Uberdude wrote:Sure! And $2 for amusing empty triangles.

So no matter how many empty triangles Joaz plays, Uberdude can define whether or not he thinks it's amusing. If he thinks none of them are amusing, to be consistent with his earlier statements, he'd only have to play $1 for each empty triangle - they are moves - and they are empty triangles, but not "amusing empty triangles".

So an easily amused Uberdude would pay $2 for any empty triangle, whereas an uneasily amused Uberdude would pay $1 for most empty triangles (since he doesn't find them amusing). My (joking) suggestion was to quantify his level of amusement such that he could pay in proportion to his amusement for a given empty triangle (between $1 and $2, depending on how amusing).

Yes, you are correct that this may lead to a lower average payment than paying $2 for every empty triangle. But that's not what Uberdude promised to. He promised to pay for amusing empty triangles.

And I'm sure, with discussions like these, Uberdude is more inclined to donate lots of money to Joaz's fund. Where else can you get this kind of entertainment?

You're right, I left amusing out of there. But I think my point of view still makes sense. Your proposal means that he donates less than $1 for almost all empty triangles that are somewhat amusing, even those that are very amusing! Mine preserves the idea a typical amusing empty triangle is worth a dollar.

However, I may be beating a dead horse. I will bow out, and let Uberdude and the public decide whose point of view makes the most sense.

Edit: that's of course ignoring the $1 per move baseline. Where I say $1, read "$1 for the empty triangle, in addition to the $1 for making a move". Of course, I made this edit after Kirby posted...

hyperpape wrote:You're right, I left amusing out of there. But I think my point of view still makes sense. Your proposal means that he donates less than $1 for almost all empty triangles that are somewhat amusing, even those that are very amusing! Mine preserves the idea a typical amusing empty triangle is worth a dollar.

However, I may be beating a dead horse. I will bow out, and let Uberdude and the public decide whose point of view makes the most sense.

No, my proposal preserves the dollar minimum per move:
Payout = $1 (for the move) + f(A) (see above)

The $1 is for the move, and the function f is what varies between 0 and 1. So the range of the function is from $1 to $2. The example I provided had 63% amusement, for a payout of $1.63.

Chop chop drmwc, only $2 so far and 12 days left!

Joaz Banbeck wrote:...

$$Wc
$$ -----------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . O O X . O . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . O O X X O . O X X . X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . O . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . O O X . X O . X . . O . . . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . X O . . . O X . . |
$$ | . O . . X O . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O X X X , X . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O X O . O O O . O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O . . . O X . . X O . X . . |
$$ | . . . . O O X . . . . . O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X . X X X X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . O . . O . O . X . . . |
$$ | . X O X B O O . O X X . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ -----------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . O O X . O . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . O O X X O . O X X . X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . O . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . O O X . X O . X . . O . . . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . X O . . . O X . . |
$$ | . O . . X O . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O X X X , X . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O X O . O O O . O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O . . . O X . . X O . X . . |
$$ | . . . . O O X . . . . . O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X . X X X X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . O . . O . O . X . . . |
$$ | . X O X B O O . O X X . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------------------[/go]

...

Bump.

Drmwc, it is that time of the year again.