Slashdot Mirror
Winning Algorithms For Rock, Paper, Scissors
Celarent Darii (1561999) writes "The probability of winning at Rock-Paper-Scissors is about 1 in 3. However, people do not play entirely randomly, a study has revealed. People tend to follow hidden patterns that can be used to win more games. A short article on the BBC gives hints on the strategies to be used to get a competitive advantage with your Rock-Scissors-Paper nemesis." Remember, these strategies are for use against people, not robots.
When I play rock, paper, scissors with someone, we just play once unless it's a tie, so there are no patterns.
Could watch you muscle movements and with sharper reflexes pick the winning option
When I play RPS, the probability of me winning is usually about 1 in 2!
Graphene
It beats everything but Paper with which it is a tie
OK, so two people play this game, each has about the same chance of winning, and that chance is 1 in 3? BTW, nowhere in the original article does it state that.
We got it, brains are pattern-based machines at thus have a hard time generating pattern-less random sequences.
Can we now leave this trivial game alone and do some real science please?
It should be Space Elevator - Nanotechnology - Private Space Colonies
has clearly never played rock-paper-scissors before
I thought the more common protocol was to win 2, as seen in the arcade game Fist Talks.
How does this not cover Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock which many geeks have adopted recently thanks to its popularization on The Big Bang Theory.
When you play high stakes Rock, Paper, Scissors in a Casino in Las Vegas, the house wins on a tie.
Citation needed. The house has far less of an edge in craps, basic strategy blackjack, roulette, or regulated slots.
but will help me beat Sheldon at rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock
... to survive, find mates and have kids. Everything else we got is extra. No one should expect the brain to do much more than what it was originally selected to do.
Here's how to win all the time: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/...
Slashdot thinks I type too fast, so they won't take this comment until I wait a while. I can only guess that they want more drivel to fill the white space on the page.
If counting cards was a completely solo task then a casino may still ask you to leave, as is there right, but they couldn't prove you were counting cards. The problem is that you do not have enough information to count cards in Blackjack on your own. How it is accomplished is through groups of people playing at the same table trying to secretly share information on the state of the deck/shoe. If you were to try and share information between players openly you would quickly find out that it is not allowed, thus trying to break that rule by keeping it secret is considered even worse. That's the real issue that casinos have with card counters. It throws the odds in favor of the player, which is something they cannot allow.
Lisa's Brain: Poor predictable Bart. Always takes 'rock'.
Bart's Brain: Good ol' 'rock'. Nothin' beats that!
Bart: Rock!
Lisa: Paper.
Bart: D'oh!
Koans and fables for the software engineer
... No.
Counting cards is fairly simple to take away the house edge, if you can count without using your fingers, its easy. You get the best performance counting when you're there from the start of the shoe, but you don't have to wait for a reshuffle to increase your chances by counting.
Its simple hi/lo/zero.
There are extremely complex methods, but they offer no major advantage to using them, arguably none at all beyond the theory that they are better.
Just because you watched some TV special about the church group doesn't mean it has to be done in a group, See Donald Johnson who has taken more from the casinos as a single player than any group has.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Rock!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
A friend of mine and I play to determine exit order on the aircraft. I've beaten him 4 out of the last 5 times we've done it playing rock. Next time we play I'm going to point that out to him in advance and then the head games begin! Will I play rock again, because it's the predictable move, or am I just setting him up to throw paper because I'm planning to throw scissors?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
By game odds alone, there is plenty of information from counting cards and changing your bets by yourself. The problem is that a single person using this information becomes quickly obvious to a pitboss or anyone else watching. You need a group of people not to get more information, but to hide the variability in betting in response to information making it harder to get caught counting.
The win-stay lose-switch strategy would do very badly in any population dominated by non cooperative members. But once tit-for-tat has established a beachhead, and driven the bad actors out of the population, win-stay lose-switch strategy would keep the cheaters to a minimum. This strategy is probably wired into us.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
(obvisouly I did not RTFA.)
When I took Simulations in gradschool 10 years ago, one of our assignment was to train a markov chain to predict the player next move at rock-paper-scissors. Using simply as state "lastmove, lastoutcome" is enough to learn what humans (read the students of the class) do.
If the winner tends to stick with the same hand, while the loser tends to switch, doesn't that imply the loser will tend to win the next round? I mean, the only way the winner can win the next round by sticking with the same hand is if the loser also sticks with the same hand.
we tend to call it paper-scissors-rock, so...
Next time I play, I'll suggest playing best 2 out of 3 so as to be able to use this tactic.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I wasn't quite sure if it was a joke. (Damn you Poe's law!) So here's another citation.
Now here's what brought it up: A local arcade has a coin-operated RPS machine called Fist Talks, and I wondered if casinos had been installing similar RPS machines that pay out. I know blackjack tables don't take pushes unless both the player and dealer bust, which provides the fundamental house edge in blackjack. Every rule that benefits the player (standing below 17, double down 10 and 11, split A-A and 8-8, increased payout for 21 with A-10) serves to moderate this house edge. I just wondered whether casino RPS existed and if so, how it reconciled the game's house edge with state gambling regulations.
They say that the person chooses the next in sequence by the name of the game, but that may not be why. Perhaps when they lose they choose the pattern that beats the pattern they just used. It still results in the same sequence, R>P>S, but for a different reason.
J
When players won a round, they tended to repeat their winning rock, paper or scissors more often than would be expected at random (one in three).
If it was truly random then anything could happen, including a game where the opponent only chooses scissors the entire time.
Twinstiq, game news
Let me correct that for you:
"The probability of winning at Rock-Paper-Scissors is about 1 in"... 2
Someone needs to go back to statistics 101...
I'm sure Dr. Cooper would have told them the winning algorithm for Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock.