Author Topic: The Hunt  (Read 19913 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #100 on: February 13, 2020, 10:43:09 AM »
yoss, I recommend reading the NYT write up on the first stage deal.  They're not Trump fans over there and they cite quite a number of benefits.  But it's important to remember, it's the stage 1 deal, not the final deal.

Most of the tariffs stay in place even after the deal is signed, because it got promises on certain key points that have to be followed through on (like, reform of China's abusive intellectual property practices).

I know, not quite as sophisticated as flying a plane full of cash to Iran in exchange for a deal that barely slows nuclear development and has funded regional wars everywhere in the middle east, but we do the best we can.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #101 on: February 13, 2020, 11:10:12 AM »
yoss, I recommend reading the NYT write up on the first stage deal.  They're not Trump fans over there and they cite quite a number of benefits.  But it's important to remember, it's the stage 1 deal, not the final deal.

Most of the tariffs stay in place even after the deal is signed, because it got promises on certain key points that have to be followed through on (like, reform of China's abusive intellectual property practices).

Okay, I'll take a look. Most of the reports I saw focused on the increased purchase of American goods and said the structural changes (IP and other abusive trade practices) were largely left out. I did know some tariffs were in place but some were reduced a little and no new ones were getting put in place.

But as I said before, I'm on board with Chinese tariffs. I just wish there had been a strong push to get the EU, Canada, and others on board with us.

Chinese trade is the one area I actually largely align with Trump. But I would really like to see him go further in getting congress to pass tariffs (or give tariff authorization to the president) based solely off of labor practices, income, environmental concerns, and other abusive trade practices. Maybe the world descends into a tariff/protectionist fueled recession but I don't think its likely. Our strongest partners wouldn't be affected - maybe we could even get a few on board. Maybe that means prices go up at Wal-Mart but in the long run we'll have a healthier economy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #102 on: February 13, 2020, 11:45:23 AM »
yoss, the thing is the World is already a giant morass of aggressive protectionism.  The "secret" lie is that it's not.  The U.S. position to not be protectionist is more unique than we understand.   The idea that a tariff is "wrong" but that a local ownership law or tax law that has 10-20 times the financial impact or more is not "part of a trade war" is a big part of why it's been a mess.

And that was part of the point served by Trump's position.  To fight back against the real trade wars that the press/government has pretended aren't going on.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #103 on: February 13, 2020, 12:00:40 PM »
Quote
That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

It's amusing that you think "running a business" translates into macroeconomic theory, or that somehow people who make it their life's work to study every country, every currency, and every policy are not successful because they don't have boatloads of entrepreneurial cash.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2020, 01:32:37 PM »
I think's interesting that you project and reinterpret what I actually said rather than confront it.  I think anyone that's ever graduated can tell you that while they learned useful skills in college much of what they do in the real world was learned outside of school.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2020, 01:43:11 PM »
Not when it comes to theory. Going with your gut doesn't cut it for complex systems. It requires rigorous analysis. Sure, most of my engineering knowledge came from outside school. School taught me how to perform the analysis and apply it to new situations. There are lots of successful entrepreneurs who find something that works for their business, they might know their own niche well. But they wouldn't be able to walk into an entirely different situation and break it down using a systematic approach, they'd have to learn by trial and error all over again.

That's what Trump is doing, and has done. He successfully developed residential and office buildings and thought that would translate into running casinos, redesigning golf courses, producing training programs, and selling steaks. It didn't. Now he's monkeying with fundamental economic forces through a lens of how he did real estate, and it's not good.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #106 on: February 13, 2020, 03:45:32 PM »
Quote
Fact is, Trump told you what he was doing and why, and got the results he told you he would get.  I think that means those who continue to pretend he didn't know what he was doing are the ones with the simplistic and naive understanding.

Baloney.

If I said that I raised a yellow flag every morning so that the sun would rise, because the sun follows the flag, you would call it simplistic and naive (not to mention other adjectives :) ).

And if I came back at you and said, "I told you what I was doing and why, and got the result I told you I would (the sun rising every morning)," you would laugh in my face.

So don't tell me just getting "the results he told you he would get" is anywhere near sufficient to prove that he isn't simplistic and naive.  Correlation does not prove causation, especially when "the results" may not be all he says they are.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #107 on: February 13, 2020, 05:25:20 PM »
...He successfully developed residential and office buildings and thought that would translate into running casinos, redesigning golf courses, producing training programs, and selling steaks. It didn't. Now he's monkeying with fundamental economic forces through a lens of how he did real estate, and it's not good.

Incorrect analysis. Anyone who can read architects' plans and the engineers' papers can easily follow them if they know what they are doing - and Trump certainly does. One of the things most relevant here is when he took over the park ice skating rink that the New York politicos were screwing up so badly. Trump immediately went to the best professional ice rink designers to get their input. He simply did what they advised and saved the project way under time and under cost.

I remember when my son was asked to bid on the construction of a new Ferris-wheel type casino in Vegas, that many CMs refused to bid on. He just said, the architects and engineers have all the details down on paper. All you need do is start at the bottom and folow the plan with good subs who know their portion of the job.

To my thinking, that is a great recommendation for a political leader to follow. I remember when Rockefeller was running for President and he was asked why he was so successful. He said he simply surrounded himself with his betters.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #108 on: February 13, 2020, 05:42:47 PM »
Quote
That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

It's amusing that you think "running a business" translates into macroeconomic theory, or that somehow people who make it their life's work to study every country, every currency, and every policy are not successful because they don't have boatloads of entrepreneurial cash.

It's noticeable that you're always going to "theory" and "hypotheticals".

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #109 on: February 13, 2020, 06:08:53 PM »
Yes, theory is important. You can hack a program together and make it work, but if you understand information theory you'll be a lot better at it.

You might be able to play poker using rules of thumb and reading people, but you'll be a lot better at it if you at least memorize the odds. Better still if you can derive where those odds came from, and then you can apply it to all kinds of card and dice games.

Quote
To my thinking, that is a great recommendation for a political leader to follow. I remember when Rockefeller was running for President and he was asked why he was so successful. He said he simply surrounded himself with his betters.

This is true. Does it sound like Trump's style though, when he knows more than his generals do?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #110 on: February 13, 2020, 07:09:41 PM »
Yeah, but when you keep losing money at the tables maybe you should get out of theory and into real world.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #111 on: February 13, 2020, 07:32:24 PM »
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success. I do play blackjack, though, because the theory behind basic strategy and card counting works. There's a reason why it was a bunch of MIT students that broke the game more than anybody else previously.

In macroeconomics, math rules the day.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #112 on: February 14, 2020, 09:58:12 AM »
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success.

True, but poker success tends to be more consistent at the tournament level. There are certainly some math/odds rules in play but in general, it's bluff-driven with a healthy dose of luck thrown in.

I learned years ago that there's a secret question you can ask Vegas blackjack dealers if you're ever not sure whether to stay or hit: "what does the book say?"

They can't technically tell you what to do, but blackjack is all math, and they *will* tell you if the math (ie the book) says you should stay on 14 if the dealer is showing a 6. Plus dealers have no free will, which means the math will always be in effect.

Dealers also want you to win, because it usually means more tips for them.



Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #113 on: February 14, 2020, 11:35:30 AM »
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success. I do play blackjack, though, because the theory behind basic strategy and card counting works. There's a reason why it was a bunch of MIT students that broke the game more than anybody else previously.

In macroeconomics, math rules the day.

And I think this post is revealing in ways you didn't intend.  Poker and Blackjack are both games created by humans to be simple enough to teach someone while they're playing. They're random enough that even a beginner can win, and complex enough that one can lose even after being an expert.  There's no question you can use math to put the odds relatively modestly  in your favor, and over time that will mean success.

But think about the fact that you favor Blackjack and why you said you favor it, the math drives the success.  What's the big difference?  In Blackjack you're playing against the house and the deck and the statistical probabilities are fixed, the House even has to follow fixed rules.  Sure other player decisions may alter the statistics before your turn, but ultimately you can still know exactly what the best play is when it's your turn.

Poker on the other hand is played against people.  You may know everything about the statistical probabilities of the cards in each players hand, but if you can't read the people playing, or worse yet if they can read you, you're gonna lose big or win much smaller than the straight probabilities.

Now ask yourself, whether the global economy is more like Blackjack, with simple rules and options the "other side's" options openly revealed and limited, or is it more like poker, where the individual player decisions and personalities are often more relevant than the straight math. 

We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #114 on: February 14, 2020, 12:02:54 PM »
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #115 on: February 14, 2020, 12:57:49 PM »
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.

Hadn't heard about this AI so looked it up real quick. It's interesting. You're actually incorrect when you say it "doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent". It absolutely observed check/raise/fold patterns of it's opponents and incorporated the psychological patterns it was observing into its decisions.

So while an AI may succeed in factoring math alongside behavior patterns, the idea that poker can be pure math for humans is not true.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #116 on: February 14, 2020, 02:38:28 PM »
Quote
We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.

So we should just make wild all-in holdem bets and hope nobody calls our bluff? Ouch.

The other way in which the global economy is more like Blackjack is that you don't have to make the other players lose in order to win. Poker is the ultimate zero sum game. You have to make everybody else lose in order to win, and that's not how the global economy functions.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #117 on: February 14, 2020, 03:32:39 PM »
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.

Lol, but why other than for amusement would they play it?  Is Libratus looking to gain wealth for some purpose?  Or is this an analogy to the terminator style AI  overlords that will control us in the future?

I never said that math and analytics don't have a role.  I said the opinions of economists that are trained on models may leave much to be desired in real world application.  That should be self evident when you get "consensus" opinions based on the math that don't hold up in the real world (almost always because the person who constructed the mathematical model left something out or missed a detail).

In any event, I would suspect a Libratus computer with a true learning AI that had a goal of maximizing US wealth, wouldn't have come up with our prior economic policies, nor would it advocate those the professors endorse. 

Interestingly, we may get to find out, it's pretty clear that the Chinese are absolutely committed to being the first to practical quantum computing and true AI, and since they deliberately blend their military, strategic and commercial interests on a country wide basis (whereas, we ruthlessly separate ours), you can expect them to deploy that tech in service of their global trade goals (which are to supress everyone else).

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #118 on: February 14, 2020, 03:56:10 PM »
Hadn't heard about this AI so looked it up real quick. It's interesting. You're actually incorrect when you say it "doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent".

I was refering to 'opponent modeling' where over a series of hands you learn an opponents playing style and weaknesses and seek to exploit their mistakes.

Quote
It absolutely observed check/raise/fold patterns of it's opponents and incorporated the psychological patterns it was observing into its decisions.

Reread what I wrote,  "it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards." and bet sizing.  It doesn't use 'psychological' at all.  It doesn't know anything at all about the opponent except the actions in the current hand.  Any action string describing the hand will give the same probability distribution regardless of the specific opponent or the hand history with that opponent.

Quote
So while an AI may succeed in factoring math alongside behavior patterns, the idea that poker can be pure math for humans is not true.

No it doesn't use 'patterns' it is all based on solving extremely large game trees for GTO using purely self play simulation.

Also humans can indeed do so - you can learn an approximate GTO strategy that will beat all but the best of humans, it just won't be good enough to beat a better GTO approximation like Libratus.  (Dom has a GTO training app 'DTO Poker Trainer' for no limit tournament hold'em that is extremely good - https://www.dto.poker/ - note that GTO for tournments is not the same solution as GTO for cash games since in tournments chip value varies with stack size).

Of course GTO isn't as profitable against bad humans as exploitative play based on opponent modeling (ie villain CBets too much on this flop texture, and then folds too many turns - so exploit by floating the flop, then donk the turn).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Hunt
« Reply #119 on: February 17, 2020, 11:28:09 PM »
We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.

I would alter this. We are in this position because some people think they are playing Blackjack against the house while others are playing poker against them, in a world that is supposed to be a co-op game but since you bought it on Ebay it didn't come with an instruction manual and everyone is trying to figure out the rules with different motives.