đ„ 'Big Brother 18' Contestants Include Former Playersâ Siblings
Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days đ
đ Vanessa Rousso - Wikipedia
Software - MORE
The latest Tweets from đŠVanessa Rousso (@VanessaRousso). Lawyer, #Poker Player, Maverick, #Music Maker, CBS #BigBrother Finalist, Game Theorist, Dog Lover. Las Vegas, NV
Enjoy!
Vanessa Ashley Rousso born February 5, 1983 is an American professional player,and television personality.
Born inNew York, Rousso holds with the United States and France.
Rousso was a member of from 2006 to 2015, with the online name Lady Maverick, and was a spokesperson for from 2009 to 2013.
She has earned money as a professional poker player since 2005, and has become here of the game's.
She has placed in the money seventeen times at the.
As of October 2017Rousso ranks among the top ten women in poker history in terms of all-time money winnings.
Rousso has been a pro-gambling campaigner and activist.
She has appeared on television in several cash or charity poker competition, and finished in third place as a contestant on the of.
Rousso began talking and reading at early ages says her mother, Cynthia Ferrara.
Born in New York, she moved with her family to France at the age of three.
She lived inin her father's homeland until she was 10, when she moved briefly to.
After her parents divorced in 1992, her mother moved Vanessa to to be near her maternal grandparents.
Rousso attended Wellington Landings Middle School.
The oldest of three athletic girls, Rousso was active on the high schooland teams.
She also played and for fun.
visit web page debating, Rousso excelled in national debating tournaments in policy debating.
Her mother is a guidance counselor vanessa big brother game theory />In 2001, Rousso graduated as valedictorian of her high school inFlorida.
She maintained a 4.
She founded the Environmental Club and served as its president.
She was also active as avarsity swimmer, and volunteer for.
Rousso has two younger sisters: Tiffany, a high school teacher and contestant on the and Leticia, an optometrist.
In college, she was on the.
After studying someshe became proficient with the and then.
However, because she considers both to be fairly objective static games, she began to prefer poker, which incorporated human that allows for inferior hands to win.
She graduated early from after two and a half years with a major in and a minor in in December 2003.
Her collegiate duration of two and a half years was the shortest time to graduate in the history of Duke.
Rousso began law school in 2004 and was the inaugural recipient of the Chaplin Scholarship from the.
During school she served on the editorial board of the University of Miami Law Review.
A poker player since the age of five, Rousso began serious play during her summer break from law school.
Rousso did not initially finish law school, dropping out to pursue her burgeoning poker career instead.
However, she returned to school in the fall of 2017, and graduated in the Spring of 2018.
Now, excluding online big top casino reviews, she ranks among the top five women in poker history in terms of all-time money winnings.
She currently resides part-time inNevada and part-time inFlorida.
This enabled her to afford entry into the World Poker Tour event at the in Vegas.
She has been televised numerous times on both and the among others.
She has made several appearances on the television program.
Rousso has also been televised as part of the World Poker Tour.
She is known for wearing a cap, headphones and designer sunglasses.
Her first win in a professional event came on June 13, 2005, inNevada, during the No-Limit Hold'em Summer Series.
Rousso joined the professional poker tour in April 2006, and by October was among the top 80 in earnings that year.
By that time she was spending Tuesday through Thursday taking her law school classes, spending the rest of the week playing in poker tournaments and fielding endorsement offers from online poker clubs.
At she had three in the money finishes.
By 2007, Rousso was a notable poker star.
In October 2007, Rousso was part of a contingent of poker industry representatives and leaders of the 800,000-member who flew to to attempt to convince the to overturn the 2006.
The law compels financial institutions to monitor and stop their customers' cash transfers to unlawful online gaming sites.
The group met with both the and the.
She spoke in favor of a proposal by to license and regulate online gambling.
The alliance also spoke in favor of the Skill Game Protection Act proposed by to exempt poker, mah-jongg, chess, bridge and other games where contestants compete against each other rather than the "house" from the Unlawful Internet Big game Enforcement Act.
In May 2009, Frank, who had become the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services in 2007, continued his efforts to "establish a framework to allow licensed gambling operators to process bets from players in the United States," with the support of the Poker Players Alliance and among others.
She had originally placed third in the event, but the winner was found to have violated the Pokerstars terms of service, which caused a disqualification ruling and caused all contestants to be elevated one place in the rankings.
At she again had three in the money finishes.
In the head-to-head single-elimination 2009 tournament, Rousso made it to the finals of the 64-person field before losing to.
Along the way to her runner-up vanessa big brother game theory, she defeated, and.
Previously, 's 2007 semi-final appearance had been the best female finish see more the annual event.
The March 6â8 tournament was broadcast on over six consecutive Sundays from April 12 â May 17, 2009.
In May 2009, Rousso won the 79-entrant 25,000 EPT High Roller Championship, which had a first prize of 720,000.
The win propelled Rousso to sixteenth place on the vanessa big brother game theory earnings list as of May 5.
In 2009, Rousso spoke in favor of changes to Florida gambling laws that would remove caps on buy-ins and wagers on poker in the state.
She felt the gambling limitations precluded more strategic and skillful deeper-stack competition and said that Florida gamblers "don't have enough chips in front of them to play out the bets and raises that are required in the skillful aspect of the game".
This cap still prohibits large tournaments with multi-thousand dollar buy-ins from occurring in Florida.
Rousso had her own April 2009 poker instructional camp in.
The camp related poker-playing and strategies to the strategies of military conflict in 's book.
The camp's website makes the analogy of the Art of War and the Art of Poker.
In the main event, she busted out on day 6 officially known as day 2B.
Rousso will be hosting Stars of Poker in France.
Her sponsorship with PokerStars ended in February 2015.
Pokerstars approached about including a poker player in their 2009 Swimsuit edition.
In her online blog on January 4, 2009, Rousso confirmed that she participated that week in a photo shoot inwhen she was there for the poker tournament.
Rousso appeared in an advertising feature paid for by PokerStars, rather than the swimsuit article itself, in the February 10, 2009 swimsuit issue.
In the advertisement, Russo appeared in a bottom and cutoff top, click to see more keeping with the swimsuit theme.
Rousso's thoughts on the Sports Illustrated publicity was that "It was a great opportunity for poker in general and for me in particular.
Rousso became an official GoDaddy Girl, replacing.
Rousso's contract as a spokesperson for the company was renewed through to the final 2013 Heads-Up tournament event.
Rousso is regarded as one of the sexiest poker players in the world, ranking 18th by in 2010, and in the click here 20 by in 2010.
Rousso has worked with American Poker Player, writing onand worked withteaching poker to its "100 Most Powerful Women".
She source a celebrity judge on where she helped award some of her own money to vanessa big brother game theory />She was a contestant on of the reality television show in 2015, finishing in third place.
Rousso has become a music producer and DJ and has formed a DJ Duo called N1TEL1TE with her life partner Melissa Ouellet.
The duo released their first song, "Kiss Face", in February 2017.
The two were engaged in 2008 and eloped in early 2009, making them the first married couple to be featured on the same major online poker team.
The couple separated in 2012, with both announcing the breakup on their Twitter accounts, with Vanessa writing "Despite great mutual fondness and respect, Chad and I have separated.
Archived from on August 24, 2010.
Retrieved October 7, 2008.
Archived from on January 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Archived from on April 1, 2009.
Retrieved May 10, 2009.
Archived from on March 8, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved September 13, 2015.
Retrieved September 24, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved August 5, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 5, 2016.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
University of Miami School of Law Link Notes.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Archived from on Vanessa big brother game theory 25, 2010.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
University of Miami Law Review.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May vanessa big brother game theory, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Salant and Lorraine Woellert May 6, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved More info 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 6, 2009.
Retrieved See more 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 11, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Archived from on June 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved January 23, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, 2010.
Retrieved January 8, 2011.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Archived from on March 12, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October vanessa big brother game theory, 2017.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved November 13, 2014.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved January 5, 2016.
Retrieved January 5, 2016.
Vanessa vanessa big brother game theory from the Big Brother house to a spectacular consolation prize: Her girlfriend Mel proposed to her at the wrap party.
By using this site, you agree to the and.
WikipediaÂź is a registered trademark of thea non-profit organization.
26 reasons why Johnny Mac was the best Big Brother 17 houseguest. Johnny Mac Vanessa's game: "I feel like she owned it more than Steve did. Steve felt more emotionally bent out of shape by what he.
Enjoy!
Big Brother: How Vanessa âmean-girledâ her. that she understood Game Theory (and said as much in more than one episode). What Vanessa has been doing all along is something more sinister.
Enjoy!
She also uses her power to create game states where her opponents are incentivized to act in ways that benefit her.
When players start to introduce aggressive strategies they are criticized, but ultimately the aggressive strategies dominate.
You can see this in the history of chess, backgammon, poker, etc.
Vanessa is the best openly aggressive player to play the game.
I think game theory's application to Big Brother is widely overstated.
Sure you can "solve" some easy problems like endgame scenarios or preferable BOB nominations with a Skittles arrangement on the HOH coffee table.
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple and obvious game theory can be used.
But game theory can't really tell you anything about article source picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game.
It's much more about social skills and charisma and, in parts, physical competitions than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Vanessa isn't tapping into any strategic knowledge base that has eluded other intelligent players for sixteen seasons.
She's making smart decisions the same way all the others do, and can be subjected to the same sort of criticism.
The skill ceiling for strategic thinking is really not that high.
There's a reason ordinary people can do just fine on Big Brother even though they could never consistently win in games like chess, backgammon, or poker.
Ie, can you give an example of a player who made a demonstrably-wrong move that was, nevertheless, widely supported by fanbase?
I think hou're misunderstanding Vanessa's use of game theory.
It's not about having a tool that kther people don't have, it's about having familiarity and experience with that tool, using it efficiently, and in Vanessa's case using it explicitly she got the house talking in terms of incentives; she made it easier for others to see their positions and influenced them to act a little bit more on "reason" and a little bit less on whim.
Vanessa is not only a game theory expert, she's a successful pro poker player.
She has been using game theory directly and deeply much of her life.
Naturally she is going to handle it with a deftness others cannot.
Even before the endgame she's running through scenarios few can handle.
She is relatively less certain that far out from the endgame, of course, but it has its use and frankly we're not even going to be able to see or even infer all of the things she's done with it even if she tried, in futility, to explain it all to use in words.
My personal theory for why Vanessa is not owning her game in the DR, besides PR reasons, is she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She's always running through scenarios, making progress on her thinking, coming to new conclusions, realizing things she has missed.
She ain't got time to try and whittle that down for soundbites that may be misunderstand anyway.
She doesn't need honest DR sessions to better her game.
On the contrary, the time to be honest has not surfaced yet I imagine it'll be during the finale and she is actually bettering her game by utilizing the DR the way she is.
PR has a lot to do with the way she portrays herself in those DR sessions, in that she HAS to be cognitive of AFP, but I think it boils down to exactly what says: she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She has no incentive to use her time explaining what can already be deduced by viewers as strategy.
It simply does not benefit her in any way.
What you're talking about is really just smart strategy, not "game theory" in the formal sense she would have studied at Duke.
Game theory is about taking mathematically well-defined games, modeling their possible moves using trees or matrices, finding equilibria, comparing optimal unexploitable strategies with exploitable ones, and the like.
As I said above, there are choices in Big Brother where this can be relevant like the final five Skittles scenariobut even then it's very basic https://gsdonline.ru/big/way-to-go-slot-machine-big-win.html that smart players do every season.
Yes, Vanessa has an edge in strategic thinking as an educated poker player, but OP's post claims that 99% of the fans don't understand Vanessa's plays because they haven't studied game theory.
That's just not true.
Game theory may deal with scenarios that have a "perfect" or "right" answer but it is applicable to more vague situations, situations with more variables.
Naturally, in a vague scenario, certain relevant variable will be intentionally and unintentionally ignored, but connect that with well thought out prioritization of variables, as well as carefully considering what are variaables in the first place, ndnuour game theory is perfectly serviceble.
And you can get better at doing different parts of this with practice like Vanessa has.
Game theory is not just about "solvable" scenarios or else Vanessa would not be dumb enough to claim it isuseful in the BB house.
She knows the BB game is not solvable.
Of course she does.
There are too many variables.
She can do this more mechanically and naturally than most because of her experience.
At first I thought this was an obscure branch of the field I hadn't heard of, but Google hasn't heard of it either.
I don't think the term "game theory" is apt for most BB decisions even if they are strategic and involve maximizing EV across variables--ie, not all game strategies are considered "game theory.
Yes, Vanessa is smart, but there's no mysticism behind this "game theory" strategy of hers, no reason why most fans couldn't understand or appreciate her moves, and no fundamental difference between her gameplay and many others' before her.
I also also think OP's two points about GTO play and aggression, which seem to be considering "game theory" in the more formal sense of the term as I've been using it, are are gross oversimplifications and don't really apply.
You are actually supporting my claim by calling the skittles graphs game theory.
That was pure decision theory because it depended on her perception of her opponents strategies.
As an example of my point, consider bowling veto.
Consider the game state that Steve created, Austin's interests were in opposition to the twins, so Vanessa encouraged Julia to make a decision where Austin could not exploit her.
Vanessa truly believes that it was in Julia's best interest to select Austin.
The general consensus Julia was manipulated into a bad decision because Austin was on "her side of the house".
As I said below I think your definition of of game theory is too narrow.
On the bowling veto, I suspect Vanessa didn't actually think that and was just looking out for herself.
Clearly the best move, and Austwins' plan, was for Julia to win the veto by having the others throw it to her.
You're right that she prevented Austin from "exploiting" her, but he was never going to exploit her.
If anything, I think this demonstrates that talking about "unexploitable strategies" in a game all about interpersonal relationships doesn't usually make sense.
Austin was unlikely to throw the veto, and if he did, Julia would have voted him out vs Vanessa.
Julia did not care about protecting Austin and Austin did not care about protecting Julia.
Th interpersonal relationships are just information that informs each players strategy.
All forms of strategy are still valid.
My read on him could be wrong, and he very well might have been hilariously voted out because of it, but I think he was sincere in his plans to throw the veto if it was down to just read article and the twins.
I think the "general consensus" sees it this way and that's why they think Julia's decision was wrong.
But I agree that if your assumption was correct then so was Vanessa's advice.
That is the beauty of Game Theory.
Vanessa's advice does not depend on those assumptions, while all other strategies do.
Yeah, I still just don't see that as what she was doing or trying to say though.
When she says to Julia "this was the right move for your game" I don't think she means "right" in a narrow GTO sense as opposed to the potentially better "exploitable" strategies we're discussing here.
After her argument with Austin after the competition she admitted her advice wasn't best.
I guess we won't know for sure until we read her promised blogs, but I would be shocked if she considered this a place where she was being intentional between GTO and exploitative strategies and was trying to advise Julia as such.
She did say to Julia in the bathroom after the competition, "trust me I'm a game theory expert.
I don't think it was an conscious use of game theory, it was just such an obvious move for someone with that experience.
I have no doubt that Vanessa would have done that same move if she was in Julia's spot.
This is what I mean by Vanessa's game being misinterpreted.
At the very least one of us is misinterpreting it!
Game theorists themselves say game theory is overstated, so it's hilarious that Vanessa thinks she's tapping into some strategic genius.
She's just being a liar, and a good one.
That's the strategy she's used this season I think game theory is misunderstood.
It is not "math that creates the best strategy".
It is a way of constructing strategies that are hard to exploit.
If your opponents are weak players it is easy to create strategies that out perform those that game theory optimal.
The ultimate goal is to maximize utility typically money.
You can create a strategy that earns a lot of money, but is exploitable.
If you opponent does not have the skill set to exploit it, then that strategy can earn more than a game theory optimal one.
You can study simple games and their game theory optimal solutions, then learn more here this knowledge to extrapolate strategies for more complicated games.
I do not believe Vanessa is using any direct complex game theory calculations in game.
I do think she created a strategy that is influenced by her knowledge of games and game theory.
In particular, game theory optimal strategies are always more aggressive than experts expect, and they are immune to exploitation.
The skittles end game graph has nothing to do with game theory.
It was based on her incorrect perception of vanessa big brother game theory strategies eg if John was HOH and Steve won veto, Steve would evict Liz.
Game theory is about constructing strategies that don't depend on opponent strategies.
Funny enough, I'm arguing with meh100 above that their definition of game theory is too broad, and I think yours is too narrow.
While finding unexploitable strategies Nash equilibrium is an element of the study of game theory, it encompasses here lot more than that.
I think the Skittles graph decision falls squarely within normal usage of the term.
It is true that you can study simpler, solved games as a model for complex, unsolved ones.
HUNLHE poker is still a long way from being solved, but game-theory-informed strategies permeate top levels of play.
However, Vanessa big brother game theory would point out that poker's unsolved nature is just a problem of computing power: there exists a perfect GTO strategy for HUNLHE poker at each stack size out there, we just haven't discovered it yet.
Contrast this with Big Brother, which has social and physical aspects as core to the game.
Unlike poker, which is pure game theory all the way down, BB cannot be reduced to mathematically defined variables, and unlimited computing power could not give you anything close to a big picture strategy for the game.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
Sure, optimal play in some solved games turned out to be more aggressive than once thought, but to extrapolate from that to "GTO play is always more aggressive than expected" is a huge leap.
And then to say "so Vanessa's aggressive play in BB is also game-theory supported" is an even bigger leap.
I'm not sure how you could even quantify "aggression" in a game like Big Brother like you can in poker.
Colloquially, Audrey and Devin played the most "aggressive" games.
Game theory does not include exploitative strategies, there is no grey area there.
The skittles graph has nothing to do with game theory.
Sorry, but this is just patently false.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
We vanessa big brother game theory that historically GTO strategies have been surprisingly aggressive when compared to domain experts opinion.
Contrast this with Big Brother You can't compare HU poker to multi player Big Brother.
There is no nash equilibrium for multiplayer poker either.
I'm not sure what this proves though.
Its not all about equilibrium.
A game theory strategy is, by definition, unexploitative and unexploitable, yes.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
On the poker side, The Click the following article of Poker does this well, or either of Philip Newall's books.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's download play no games chris brown ft big sean there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
Even if you want claim her resulting decision wasn't truly game theoretic "unexploitable" I agreeI suggest it's the closest thing you'll find in the Big Brother house to game theory inspired reasoning or applied game theory skills.
It's certainly a lot closer than "hide behind a showmance" or "try to win competitions" or "cry and confront people" which, as I've said above, may be good strategies but are not the result of calculating an unexploitable line.
Imagine that it's theoretically possible to solve a multiplayer game like full-ring poker and it in fact has been solved.
We're still no closer to a "solution" for a game like Big Brother due to the irreducibly non-mathematic elements.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
I don't want to come off as dickish; I enjoy talking about game theory and am glad you are engaging in this discussion.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
To use Mathematics of Poker as an example, part 2 is not game theory, but part 3 is.
I think he draws the line as clearly as I do.
I'm only being a stickler for this because it is actually relevant to my point that Game Theory is misunderstood.
You are clearly in the top 0.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
I am confident the skittles graph was pure exploitive play.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
One thing to keep in mind is that Game Theory is used to model situations more complicated than big brother.
All the thinks you list are just variables.
Sure they are hard to model, but more complicated things have been modeled.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.
Weightlifting is a bad example field for game theory because there are not agents in opposition.
Maybe there are but that is just to abstract for me.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
I stand by the fact that her game is misunderstood by just about everyone.
The bowling veto is the most recent example.
The aggression argument is admittedly weak but my intuition says it is correct.
Big Brother is a young game.
Consider the 17th poker tournament ever played.
Realistically we should expect to see a new "best player" every year.
I anticipate that these players will play more aggressive than Will, Dan, and Derrick.
My introduction to game theory was poker as well.
I think the poker community is very a poor source of information about game theory though, with the exception of Bill Chens book.
It's been a while since I've dusted off Mathematics of Poker and I could have this wrong, but I remember a discussion of game theory in it that considered a hypothetical opponent with perfectly-exploitative play and reasons from there to develop GTO strategies vanessa big brother game theory counter it.
I agree that not many other poker books discuss game theory, but a notable exception I found was Philip Newall's The Intelligent Poker Player and Further Limit Hold'Em.
He mostly focuses on HULHE where there's a lot of concrete things to say about GTO play and has a similar approach to the topic: he considers an exploitative line, finds an exploit, modifies it, and keeps putting epicycles on the strategy until it approaches GTO.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
If we put each player in solitary confinement where they big thunder slot game only communicate through terminals with preset messages "friend" and "betray" or whatever then it would be conceivable, but in real life when one houseguest tries to "friend" it goes very differently than when another does because of differences in nearly unlimited variables.
Yes, some very complicated things have been modeled by economists, but not, to my knowledge, "human relationships" in a way that would be necessary to yield useful results.
I don't know how I feel about aggression.
It still seems like a hard concept to quantify in Big Brother and, depending on how it was defined, might not correlate to the most important aspects of a winning strategy.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I understand your perspective, and it is common in the poker world.
At the end of the day it is just terminology, and "game theory" is vanessa big brother game theory bad name for the field because it sound so general.
Game theory is a field of mathematics that is well defined though.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
Ultimately everything can be modeled, but the usefulness of the model could be called into question.
Imagine if you boiled all the social interactions down to a single value that represented the trust one person has for another.
So the model is a set of values that represent please click for source between individuals.
I think there are situations where the model could be effective.
For instance the situation where you want to target a well connected player to break up relationships while minimizing the damage done to your own relationships.
Obviously more complicated better models exist.
We're already predicting that Vanessa wins Big Brother 17. Read on to find out if you agree with us. Big Brother 17: 6 Reasons why Vanessa will win the game â SheKnows
Enjoy!
Vanessa Ashley Rousso born February 5, 1983 is an American professional player,and television personality.
Born inNew York, Rousso holds with the United States and France.
Rousso was a member of from 2006 to 2015, with the online name Lady Maverick, and was a spokesperson for from 2009 to 2013.
She has earned money as a professional poker player since 2005, and has become one of the game's.
She has placed in the money seventeen times at the.
As of October 2017Rousso ranks among the top ten women in poker history in terms of all-time money winnings.
Rousso has been a pro-gambling campaigner and activist.
She has appeared on television in several cash or charity poker competition, and finished in third place as a contestant on the of.
Rousso began talking and reading at early ages says her mother, Cynthia Ferrara.
Born in New York, she moved with her family to France at the age of three.
She lived inin her father's homeland until she was 10, when she moved briefly to.
After her parents divorced in 1992, her mother moved Vanessa to to be near her maternal grandparents.
Rousso attended Wellington Landings Middle School.
The oldest of three athletic girls, Rousso was active on the high schooland teams.
She also played and for fun.
In debating, Rousso excelled in national debating tournaments in policy debating.
Her mother is a guidance counselor https://gsdonline.ru/big/big-wins-on-penny-slots.html />In 2001, Rousso graduated as valedictorian of her high school inFlorida.
She maintained a 4.
She founded the Environmental Club and served as its president.
She was also active as avarsity swimmer, and volunteer for.
Rousso has two younger sisters: Tiffany, a high school teacher and contestant on the click Leticia, an optometrist.
In college, she was on the.
After studying someshe became proficient with the and then.
However, because she considers both to be fairly objective static games, she began to prefer poker, which incorporated human that allows for inferior hands to win.
She graduated early from after two and a half years with a major in and a minor in in December 2003.
Her collegiate duration of two and a half years was the shortest time to graduate in the history of Duke.
Rousso began law school in vanessa big brother game theory and was the inaugural recipient of the Chaplin Scholarship from the.
During school she served on the editorial board of the University of Miami Law Review.
A poker player since the age of five, Rousso began serious play during her summer break from law school.
Rousso did not initially finish law school, dropping out to pursue her burgeoning poker career instead.
However, she returned to school in the fall of 2017, and graduated in the Spring of 2018.
Now, excluding online winnings, she ranks among the top five women in poker history in terms of all-time money winnings.
She currently resides part-time inNevada and part-time inFlorida.
This enabled her to afford entry into the World Poker Tour event at the in Vegas.
She has been televised numerous times on both and the among others.
She has made several appearances on the television program.
Rousso has also been televised as part of the World Poker Tour.
She is known for wearing a cap, headphones and designer sunglasses.
Her first win in a professional event came on June 13, 2005, inNevada, during the No-Limit Hold'em Summer Series.
Rousso joined the professional poker tour in April 2006, and by October was among the top 80 in earnings that year.
By that time she was spending Tuesday through Thursday taking her law school classes, spending the rest of the week playing in poker tournaments and fielding endorsement offers from online poker clubs.
At she had three in the money finishes.
By 2007, Rousso was a notable poker star.
In October 2007, Rousso was part of a contingent of poker industry representatives and leaders of the 800,000-member who flew to to attempt to convince the to overturn the 2006.
The law compels financial institutions to monitor and stop their customers' cash transfers to unlawful online gaming sites.
The group met with both the and the.
She spoke in favor of a proposal by to license and regulate online gambling.
The alliance also check this out in favor of the Skill Game Protection Act proposed by to exempt poker, vanessa big brother game theory, chess, bridge and other games where contestants compete against each other rather than the "house" from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
In May 2009, Frank, who had become the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services in 2007, continued his efforts to "establish a framework to allow licensed gambling operators to process bets from players in the United States," with the support of the Poker Players Alliance and among others.
She had originally placed third in the event, but the winner was found to have violated the Pokerstars terms of service, which caused a disqualification ruling and caused all contestants to be elevated one place in the rankings.
At she again had three in the money finishes.
In the head-to-head single-elimination 2009 tournament, Rousso made it to the finals of the 64-person field before losing to.
Along the way to her runner-up finish, she defeated, and.
Previously, 's 2007 semi-final appearance had been the best female finish in the annual event.
The March 6â8 tournament was broadcast on over six consecutive Sundays from April 12 â May 17, 2009.
In May 2009, Rousso won the 79-entrant 25,000 EPT High Roller Championship, which had a first prize of 720,000.
The win propelled Rousso to sixteenth place on the 2009 earnings list as of May 5.
In 2009, Rousso spoke in favor of changes to Florida gambling laws that would remove caps on buy-ins and wagers on poker in the state.
She vanessa big brother game theory the gambling limitations precluded more strategic and skillful deeper-stack competition and said that Florida gamblers "don't have enough chips in front of them to play out the bets and raises that are required in how to win big money in a casino skillful aspect of the game".
This cap still prohibits large tournaments with multi-thousand dollar buy-ins from occurring in Florida.
Rousso had her own April 2009 poker instructional camp in.
The camp related poker-playing and strategies to the strategies of military conflict in 's book.
The camp's website makes the analogy of the Art of Vanessa big brother game theory and the Art of Poker.
In the main event, she busted out on day 6 officially known as day 2B.
Rousso will be hosting Stars of Poker in France.
Her sponsorship with PokerStars ended in February 2015.
Pokerstars approached about including a poker player in their 2009 Swimsuit edition.
In her online blog on January 4, 2009, Rousso confirmed that she participated that week in a photo shoot inwhen she was there for the poker tournament.
Rousso appeared in an advertising feature paid for by PokerStars, rather than the swimsuit article itself, in the February 10, 2009 swimsuit issue.
In the advertisement, Russo appeared in a bottom and cutoff top, in keeping with the swimsuit theme.
Rousso's thoughts on the Consider, big rig europe games free online mine Illustrated publicity was that "It was a great opportunity for poker in general and for me in particular.
Rousso became an official GoDaddy Girl, replacing.
Rousso's contract as a spokesperson for the company was renewed serious? play online big money game opinion to the final 2013 Heads-Up tournament event.
Rousso is regarded as one of the sexiest poker players in the world, ranking 18th by in 2010, and in the top 20 by in 2010.
Rousso has worked with American Poker Player, writing onand worked https://gsdonline.ru/big/neptunes-kingdom-big-slot-win.htmlteaching poker to its "100 Most Powerful Women".
She was a celebrity judge on where she helped award some of her own money to contestants.
She was a contestant on of the reality television show in 2015, finishing in third place.
Rousso has become a music producer and DJ and has formed a DJ Duo called N1TEL1TE with her life partner Melissa Ouellet.
The duo released their first vanessa big brother game theory, "Kiss Face", in February 2017.
The two were engaged in 2008 and eloped in early 2009, making them the first married couple to be featured on the same major online poker team.
The couple separated in 2012, with both announcing the breakup on their Twitter accounts, with Vanessa big brother game theory writing "Despite great mutual fondness and respect, Chad and I have separated.
Archived from on August 24, 2010.
Retrieved October 7, 2008.
Archived from on January 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Archived from on April 1, 2009.
Retrieved May 10, 2009.
Archived from on March 8, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, big break />Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved September 13, 2015.
Retrieved September 24, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved August 5, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 5, 2016.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
University of Miami School of Law Dean's Notes.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Archived from on August 25, 2010.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
University of Miami Law Review.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Salant and Lorraine Woellert May 6, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 6, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 11, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Archived from on June 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
please click for source July 30, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved January 23, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, driver gamepad big ben />Retrieved January 8, 2011.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Archived from on March 12, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved November 13, 2014.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved January 5, 2016.
Vanessa emerged from the Big Brother house to a spectacular consolation prize: Her girlfriend Mel proposed to her at the wrap party.
By using this site, you agree to the and.
WikipediaÂź is a registered trademark of thea non-profit organization.
đ° Vanessa Rousso - Wikipedia
Software - MORE
Welcome to the OFFICIAL Big Bang Theory YouTube channel! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE! Leonard and Sheldon are brilliant physicists - geniuses in the laboratory...
Enjoy!
She also uses her power to create game states where her opponents are incentivized to act in ways that benefit her.
When players start to introduce aggressive strategies they are criticized, but ultimately the aggressive strategies dominate.
You can see this in the history of chess, backgammon, poker, etc.
Vanessa is the best openly aggressive player to play the game.
I think game theory's application to Big Brother is widely overstated.
Sure you can "solve" some easy problems like endgame scenarios or preferable BOB nominations with a Skittles arrangement on the HOH coffee table.
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple and obvious game theory can be used.
But game theory can't really tell you anything about "big picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game.
It's much more about social skills and charisma and, in parts, physical competitions than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Vanessa isn't tapping into any strategic knowledge base that has eluded other intelligent players for sixteen seasons.
She's making smart decisions the same way all the others do, and can be subjected to the same sort of criticism.
The skill ceiling for strategic thinking is really not that high.
There's a reason ordinary people can do just fine on Big Brother even though they could never consistently win in games like chess, backgammon, or poker.
Ie, can you give an example of a player who made a demonstrably-wrong move that was, nevertheless, widely supported by fanbase?
I think hou're misunderstanding Vanessa's use of game theory.
It's not about having a tool that kther people don't have, it's about having familiarity and experience with that tool, using it efficiently, and in Vanessa's case using it explicitly she got the house talking in terms of incentives; she made it easier for others to see their positions and influenced them to act a little bit more on "reason" and a little bit less on whim.
Vanessa is not only a game theory expert, she's a successful pro poker player.
She has been using game theory directly and deeply much of her life.
Naturally she is going to handle it with a deftness others cannot.
Even before the endgame she's running through scenarios few can handle.
She is relatively less certain that far out from the endgame, of course, but https://gsdonline.ru/big/t20-big-bash-games-online.html has its use and frankly we're not even going to be able to see or even infer all of the things she's done with it even if she tried, in futility, to explain it all to use in words.
My personal theory for why Vanessa is not owning her game in the DR, besides PR reasons, is she simply here have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She's always running through scenarios, making progress on her thinking, coming to new conclusions, realizing things she has missed.
She ain't got time to try and whittle that down for soundbites that may be misunderstand https://gsdonline.ru/big/slots-2019-big-win-casino-mod-apk.html />She doesn't need honest DR sessions to better her game.
On the contrary, the time to be honest has not surfaced yet I imagine it'll be during the finale and she is actually bettering her game by utilizing the DR the way she is.
PR has a lot to do with the way she portrays herself in those DR sessions, in that she HAS to be cognitive of AFP, but I think it boils down to exactly what says: she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She has no incentive to use her time explaining what can already be deduced by viewers as strategy.
It simply does not benefit her in any way.
What you're talking about is really just smart strategy, not "game theory" in the formal sense she would have studied at Duke.
Game theory is about taking mathematically well-defined games, modeling their possible moves using trees or matrices, finding equilibria, comparing optimal unexploitable strategies with exploitable ones, and the like.
As I said above, there are choices in Big Brother where this can be relevant like the final five Skittles scenariobut even then it's very basic stuff that smart players do every season.
Yes, Vanessa has an edge in strategic thinking as an educated poker player, but OP's post claims that 99% of the fans don't understand Vanessa's plays because they haven't studied game theory.
That's just not true.
Game theory may deal with scenarios that have a "perfect" or "right" answer but it is applicable to more vague situations, situations with more variables.
Naturally, in a vague scenario, certain relevant variable will be intentionally and unintentionally ignored, but connect that with well thought out prioritization of variables, as well as carefully considering what are variaables in the first place, ndnuour game theory is perfectly serviceble.
And you can get better at doing different parts of this with practice like Vanessa has.
Game theory is not just about "solvable" scenarios or else Vanessa would not be dumb enough to claim it isuseful in the BB house.
She knows the BB game is not solvable.
Of course she does.
There are too many variables.
She can do this more mechanically and naturally than most because of her experience.
At first I thought this was an obscure branch of the field I hadn't heard of, but Google hasn't heard of it either.
I don't think the term "game theory" is apt for most BB decisions even if they are strategic and involve maximizing EV across variables--ie, not all game strategies are considered "game theory.
Yes, Vanessa is smart, but there's no mysticism behind this "game theory" strategy of hers, no reason why most fans couldn't understand or appreciate her moves, and no fundamental difference between her gameplay and many others' before her.
I also also think OP's two points about GTO play and aggression, which seem to be considering "game theory" in the more formal sense of the term as I've been using it, are are gross oversimplifications and don't really apply.
You are actually supporting my claim by calling the skittles graphs game theory.
That was pure decision theory because it depended on her perception of her opponents strategies.
As an example of my point, consider bowling veto.
Consider the game state that Steve created, Austin's interests were in opposition to the twins, so Vanessa encouraged Julia to make a decision where Austin could not exploit her.
Vanessa truly believes that it was in Julia's best interest vanessa big brother game theory select Austin.
The general consensus Julia was manipulated into a bad decision because Austin was on "her side of the house".
As I said below I think your definition of of game theory is too narrow.
On the bowling veto, I suspect Vanessa didn't actually think that and was just looking out for herself.
Clearly the best move, and Austwins' plan, was for Julia to win the veto by having the others throw it to her.
You're right that she prevented Austin from "exploiting" her, but he was never going to exploit her.
If anything, I think this demonstrates that talking about "unexploitable strategies" in a game all about interpersonal relationships doesn't usually make sense.
Austin was unlikely to throw the veto, and if he did, Julia would have voted him out vs Vanessa.
Julia did not care about protecting Austin and Austin did not care about protecting Julia.
Th interpersonal relationships are just information that informs each players strategy.
All forms of strategy are still valid.
My read on him could be wrong, and he very well might have been hilariously voted out because of it, but I think he was sincere in his plans to throw the veto if it was down to just him and the twins.
I think the "general consensus" sees it this way and that's why they think Julia's decision was wrong.
But I agree that if your assumption was correct then so was Vanessa's advice.
That is the beauty of Game Theory.
Vanessa's advice does not depend on those assumptions, while all other strategies do.
Yeah, I still just don't see that as what she was doing or trying to say though.
When she says to Julia "this was the right move for your game" I don't think she means "right" in check this out narrow GTO sense as opposed to the potentially better "exploitable" strategies we're discussing here.
After her argument with Austin after the competition she admitted her advice wasn't best.
I guess we won't know for sure until we read her promised blogs, but I would be shocked if she considered this a place where she was being intentional between GTO and exploitative strategies and was trying to advise Julia as such.
She did say to Julia in the bathroom after the competition, "trust me I'm a game theory expert.
I don't think it was an conscious use of game theory, it was just such an obvious move for someone here that experience.
I have no doubt that Vanessa would have done that same move if she was in Julia's spot.
This is what I mean by Vanessa's game being misinterpreted.
At the very least one of us is misinterpreting it!
Game theorists themselves say game theory is overstated, so it's hilarious that Vanessa thinks she's tapping into some strategic genius.
She's just being a liar, and a good one.
That's the strategy she's used this season I think game theory is misunderstood.
It is not "math that creates the best strategy".
It is a way of constructing strategies that are hard to exploit.
If your opponents are weak players it is easy to create strategies that out perform those that game theory optimal.
The ultimate goal just click for source to maximize utility typically money.
If you opponent does not have the skill set to exploit it, then that strategy can article source more than a game theory optimal one.
You can study simple games and their game theory optimal solutions, then use this knowledge to extrapolate strategies for more complicated games.
I do not believe Vanessa is using any direct complex game theory calculations in game.
I do think she created a strategy that is influenced by her knowledge of games and game theory.
In particular, game theory optimal strategies are always more aggressive than experts expect, and they are immune to exploitation.
The skittles end game graph has nothing to do with game theory.
It was based on her incorrect perception of opponent strategies eg if John was HOH and Steve won veto, Steve would evict Liz.
Game theory is about constructing strategies that don't depend on opponent strategies.
Funny enough, I'm vanessa big brother game theory with meh100 above that their definition of game theory is too broad, and I think yours is too narrow.
While finding unexploitable strategies Nash equilibrium is an element of the study of game theory, it encompasses a lot more than that.
I think the Skittles graph decision falls squarely within normal usage of the term.
It is true that you can study simpler, solved games as a model for complex, unsolved ones.
HUNLHE poker is still a long way from being solved, but game-theory-informed strategies permeate top levels of play.
However, I would point out that poker's unsolved nature is just a problem of computing power: there exists a perfect GTO strategy for HUNLHE poker at each stack size out there, we just haven't discovered it yet.
Contrast this with Big Brother, which has social and physical aspects as core to the game.
Unlike poker, which is pure game theory all the way down, BB cannot be reduced to mathematically defined variables, and unlimited computing power could not give you anything close to a big picture strategy for the game.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
Sure, optimal play in some solved games turned out to be more aggressive than once thought, but to extrapolate from that to "GTO play is always more aggressive than expected" is a huge leap.
And then to say "so Vanessa's aggressive play in BB is also game-theory supported" is an even bigger leap.
I'm not sure how you could even quantify "aggression" in a game like Big Brother like you can in poker.
Colloquially, Audrey and Devin played the most "aggressive" games.
Game theory does not include exploitative strategies, there is no grey area there.
The skittles graph has nothing to do with game theory.
Sorry, but this is just patently false.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
We agree that historically GTO strategies have been surprisingly aggressive when compared to domain experts opinion.
Contrast this with Big Brother You can't compare HU poker to multi player Big Brother.
There is no nash equilibrium for multiplayer poker either.
I'm not sure what this proves though.
Its not all about equilibrium.
A game theory strategy is, by definition, unexploitative and unexploitable, yes.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
On the poker side, The Mathematics of Poker does this well, or either of Philip Newall's books.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
Even if you want claim her resulting decision wasn't truly game theoretic "unexploitable" I agreeI suggest it's the closest thing you'll find in the Big Brother house to game theory inspired reasoning or applied game theory skills.
It's certainly a lot closer than "hide behind a showmance" or "try to win competitions" or "cry and confront people" which, as I've said above, may be good strategies but are not the result of calculating an unexploitable line.
Imagine that it's theoretically possible to solve a multiplayer game like full-ring poker and it in fact has been solved.
We're still no closer to a "solution" for a game like Big Brother due to the irreducibly non-mathematic elements.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
I don't want to come off as dickish; I enjoy talking about game theory and am glad you are engaging in this discussion.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated see more underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
I think he draws the line as clearly click the following article I do.
I'm only being a stickler for this because it is actually relevant to my point that Game Theory is misunderstood.
You are clearly in the top 0.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
I am confident the skittles graph was pure exploitive play.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
One thing to keep in mind is that Game Theory is used to model situations more complicated than big brother.
All the thinks you list are just variables.
Sure they are hard to model, but more complicated things have been modeled.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.
Weightlifting is a bad example field for game theory because there are not agents in opposition.
Maybe there are but that is just to abstract for me.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
I stand by the fact that her game is misunderstood by just about everyone.
The bowling veto is the most recent example.
The aggression argument is admittedly weak but my intuition says it is correct.
Big Brother is a young game.
Consider the 17th poker tournament ever played.
Realistically we should expect to see a new "best player" every year.
I anticipate that these players will play more aggressive than Will, Dan, and Derrick.
My introduction to game theory was poker as well.
I think the poker community is very a poor source of information about game theory though, with the exception of Bill Chens book.
It's been a while since I've dusted off Mathematics of Poker and I could have this wrong, but I remember a discussion of game theory in it that considered a hypothetical opponent with perfectly-exploitative play and reasons from there to develop GTO strategies to counter it.
I agree that not many other poker books discuss game theory, but a notable exception I found was Philip Vanessa big brother game theory The Intelligent Poker Player and Further Limit Hold'Em.
He mostly focuses on HULHE where there's a lot of concrete things to say about GTO play and has a similar approach to the topic: he considers an exploitative line, finds an exploit, modifies it, and keeps putting epicycles on the strategy until it approaches GTO.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
If we https://gsdonline.ru/big/big-games-of-2019.html each player in solitary confinement where they could only communicate through terminals with preset messages "friend" and "betray" or whatever then it would be conceivable, but in real life when one houseguest tries to "friend" it goes very differently than when another does because of differences in nearly unlimited variables.
Yes, some very complicated things have been modeled by economists, but not, to my knowledge, "human relationships" in a way that would be necessary to yield useful results.
I don't know how I feel about aggression.
It still seems like a hard concept to quantify in Big Brother and, depending on how it was defined, might not correlate to the most important aspects of a winning strategy.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I understand your perspective, and it here common in the poker world.
At the end of the day it is just terminology, and "game theory" is a bad name for the field because it sound so general.
Game theory is a field of mathematics that is well defined though.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
Ultimately everything can be modeled, but the usefulness of the model could be called into question.
Imagine if you boiled all the social interactions down to a single value that represented the trust one person has for another.
So the model is a set of values that represent trust between individuals.
I think there are situations where the model could be effective.
For instance the situation where you want to target a well connected player to break up relationships while minimizing the damage done to your own relationships.
Obviously more complicated better models exist.
đ€ Vanessa Rousso - Game Theory - YouTube
Software - MORE
Create fun and exciting simulations with the BrantSteele Big Brother Simulator.
Enjoy!
đ Vanessa Rousso - Wikipedia
Software - MORE
Vanessa also theorizes that if the HoH comp is a mental one, then the next one might be physical. She thinks maybe she or Steve should win the mental one, to save Johnny Mac for a physical comp. (If Vanessa wasn't a crybaby, then the entire Big Brother community would be giving her game the respect it deserves.
Enjoy!
đ€ Vanessa Rousso - Wikipedia
Software - MORE
The latest Tweets from đŠVanessa Rousso (@VanessaRousso). Lawyer, #Poker Player, Maverick, #Music Maker, CBS #BigBrother Finalist, Game Theorist, Dog Lover. Las Vegas, NV
Enjoy!
She also uses her power to create game states where her opponents are incentivized to act in ways that benefit her.
When players start to introduce aggressive strategies they are criticized, but ultimately the aggressive strategies dominate.
You can see this in the history of chess, backgammon, poker, etc.
Vanessa is the best openly aggressive player to play the game.
I think game theory's application to Big Brother is widely overstated.
Sure you can "solve" some easy problems like endgame scenarios or preferable BOB nominations with a Skittles arrangement on the HOH coffee table.
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple and obvious game theory can be used.
But game theory can't really tell you anything about "big picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game.
It's much more about social skills and charisma and, in parts, physical competitions than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Vanessa isn't tapping into any strategic knowledge base that has eluded other intelligent players for sixteen seasons.
She's making smart decisions the same way all the others do, and can be subjected to the same sort of criticism.
The skill ceiling for strategic thinking is really not that high.
There's a reason ordinary people can do just fine on Big Brother even though they could never consistently win in games like chess, backgammon, or poker.
Ie, can you give an example of a player who made a demonstrably-wrong move that was, nevertheless, widely supported by fanbase?
I think hou're misunderstanding Vanessa's use of game theory.
It's not about having a tool that kther people don't have, it's about having familiarity and experience with that tool, source it efficiently, and in Vanessa's case using it explicitly she got the house talking in terms of incentives; she made it easier for others to see their big game and influenced them to act a little bit more on "reason" and a little bit less on whim.
Vanessa is not only a game theory expert, she's a successful pro poker player.
She has been using game theory directly and deeply much of her life.
Naturally she is going to handle it with a deftness others cannot.
Even before the endgame she's running through scenarios few can handle.
She is relatively less certain that far out from the endgame, of course, but it has its use and frankly we're not even going to be able to see or even infer all of the things she's done with it even if she tried, in futility, to explain it all to use in words.
My personal theory for why Vanessa is not owning her game in the DR, besides PR reasons, is she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She's always running through scenarios, making progress on her thinking, coming to new conclusions, realizing things she has missed.
She ain't got time to try and whittle that down for soundbites that may be misunderstand anyway.
She doesn't need honest DR sessions to better her game.
On the contrary, the time to be honest has not surfaced yet I imagine it'll be during the finale and she is actually bettering her game by utilizing the DR the way she is.
PR has a lot to do with the way she portrays herself in those DR sessions, in that she HAS to be cognitive of AFP, but I think it boils down to exactly what says: she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She has no incentive to use her time explaining what can already be deduced by viewers as strategy.
It simply does not benefit her in any way.
What you're talking about is really just smart strategy, not "game theory" in the formal sense she would big 12 games tonight studied at Duke.
Game theory is about taking mathematically well-defined games, modeling their possible moves using trees or matrices, finding equilibria, comparing optimal unexploitable strategies with exploitable ones, and the like.
As I said above, there are choices in Big Brother where this can be relevant like the final five Vanessa big brother game theory scenariobut even then it's very basic stuff that smart players do every season.
Yes, Vanessa has an edge in strategic thinking as an educated poker player, but OP's post claims that 99% of the fans don't understand Vanessa's plays because they haven't studied game theory.
That's just not true.
Game theory may deal with scenarios that have a "perfect" or "right" answer but it is applicable to more vague situations, situations with more variables.
Naturally, in a vague scenario, certain relevant variable will be intentionally and unintentionally ignored, but connect that with well thought out prioritization of variables, as well as carefully considering what are variaables in the first place, ndnuour game theory is perfectly serviceble.
And you can get better at doing different parts of this with practice like Vanessa has.
Game theory is not just about "solvable" scenarios or else Vanessa would not be dumb enough to claim it isuseful in the BB house.
She knows the BB game is not solvable.
Of course she does.
There are too many variables.
She can do this more mechanically and naturally than most because of her experience.
At first I thought this was an obscure branch of the field I hadn't heard of, but Google hasn't heard of it either.
I don't think the term "game theory" is apt for most BB decisions even if they are strategic and involve maximizing EV across variables--ie, not all game strategies are considered "game theory.
Yes, Vanessa is smart, but there's no mysticism behind this "game theory" strategy of hers, no reason why most fans couldn't understand or appreciate her moves, and no fundamental difference between her gameplay and many others' before her.
I also also think OP's two points about GTO play and aggression, which seem to be considering "game theory" in the more formal sense of the term as I've been using it, are are gross oversimplifications and don't really apply.
You are actually supporting my claim by calling the skittles graphs game theory.
That was pure decision theory because it depended on her perception of her opponents strategies.
As an example of my point, consider bowling veto.
Consider the game state that Steve created, Austin's interests were in opposition to the twins, so Vanessa encouraged Julia to make a decision where Austin could not exploit her.
Vanessa truly believes that it was in Julia's best interest to select Austin.
The general consensus Julia was manipulated into a bad decision because Austin was on "her side of the house".
As I said below I think your definition of of game theory is too narrow.
On the bowling veto, I suspect Vanessa didn't actually think that and was just looking out for herself.
Clearly the best move, and Austwins' plan, was for Julia to win the veto by having the others throw it to her.
You're right that she prevented Austin from "exploiting" her, but he was never going to exploit her.
If anything, I think this demonstrates that talking about "unexploitable strategies" in a game all about interpersonal relationships doesn't usually make sense.
Austin was unlikely to throw the veto, and if he did, Julia would have voted him out vs Vanessa.
Julia did not care about protecting Austin and Austin did not care about protecting Julia.
Th interpersonal relationships are just information that informs each players strategy.
All forms of strategy are still valid.
My read on him could be wrong, and he very well might have been hilariously voted out because of it, but I think he was sincere in his plans to throw the veto if it was down to just him and the twins.
I think the "general consensus" sees it this way and that's why they think Julia's decision was wrong.
But I agree that if your assumption was correct then so was Vanessa's advice.
That is the beauty of Game Theory.
Vanessa's advice does not depend on those assumptions, while all other strategies do.
Yeah, I still just don't see that as what she was doing or trying to say though.
When she says to Julia "this was the right move for your game" I don't think she means "right" in a narrow GTO sense as opposed to the potentially better "exploitable" strategies we're discussing here.
After her argument with Austin after the competition she admitted her advice wasn't best.
I guess we won't know for sure until we read article her promised blogs, but I would be shocked if she considered this a place where she was being intentional between GTO and exploitative strategies and was trying to advise Julia as such.
She did say to Julia in the bathroom after the competition, "trust me I'm a game theory expert.
I don't think it was an conscious use of game theory, it was just such an obvious move for someone with that experience.
I have no doubt that Vanessa would have done that same move if she was in Julia's spot.
This is what I mean by Vanessa's game being misinterpreted.
At the very least one of us is misinterpreting it!
Game theorists themselves say game theory is overstated, so it's hilarious that Vanessa thinks she's tapping into some strategic genius.
She's just being a liar, and a good one.
That's the strategy she's used this season I think game theory is misunderstood.
It is not "math that creates the best strategy".
It is a way of constructing strategies that are hard to exploit.
If your opponents are weak players it is easy to create strategies that out perform those that game theory optimal.
The ultimate goal is to maximize utility typically money.
You can create a strategy that earns a lot of money, but is exploitable.
If you opponent does not have the skill set to exploit it, then that strategy can earn more than a game theory optimal one.
You can study simple games and their game theory optimal solutions, then use this knowledge to extrapolate strategies for more complicated games.
I do not believe Vanessa is using any direct complex game theory calculations in game.
I do think she created a strategy that is influenced by her knowledge of games and game theory.
In particular, game theory optimal strategies are always more aggressive than experts expect, and they are immune to exploitation.
The skittles end game graph has nothing to do with game theory.
It was based on her incorrect perception of opponent strategies eg if John was HOH and Steve won veto, Steve would evict Liz.
Game theory is about constructing strategies that don't depend on opponent strategies.
Funny enough, I'm arguing with meh100 above that their definition of game theory is too broad, and I think yours is too narrow.
While finding unexploitable strategies Nash equilibrium is an element of the study of game theory, it encompasses a lot more than that.
I think the Skittles graph decision falls squarely within normal usage of the term.
It is true that you can study simpler, solved games as a model for complex, unsolved ones.
HUNLHE poker is still a long way from being solved, but game-theory-informed strategies permeate top levels of play.
However, I would point out that poker's unsolved nature is just a problem of computing power: there exists a perfect GTO strategy for HUNLHE poker at each stack size out there, we just haven't discovered it yet.
Contrast this with Big Brother, which has social and physical aspects as core to the game.
Unlike poker, which is pure game theory all the way down, BB cannot be reduced to mathematically defined variables, and unlimited computing power could not give you anything close to a big picture strategy for the game.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
Sure, optimal play in some solved games turned out to be more aggressive than once thought, but to extrapolate from that to "GTO play is always more aggressive than expected" is a huge leap.
And then to say "so Vanessa's aggressive play in BB is also game-theory supported" is an even bigger leap.
I'm not sure how you could even quantify "aggression" in a game like Big Brother like you can in poker.
Colloquially, Audrey and Devin played the most "aggressive" games.
Game theory does not include exploitative strategies, there is no grey area there.
The skittles graph has nothing to do with game theory.
Sorry, but this is just patently false.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
We agree that historically GTO strategies have been surprisingly aggressive when compared to domain experts opinion.
Contrast this with Big Brother You can't compare HU poker to multi player Big Brother.
There is no nash equilibrium for multiplayer poker either.
I'm not sure what this proves though.
Its not all about equilibrium.
A game theory strategy is, by definition, unexploitative and unexploitable, yes.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
On the poker side, The Mathematics of Poker does this well, or either of Geisha story slot big win Newall's books.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
Even if you want claim her resulting decision wasn't truly game theoretic "unexploitable" I agreeI suggest it's the closest thing you'll find in the Big Brother house to game theory inspired reasoning or applied game theory skills.
It's certainly a lot closer than "hide behind a showmance" or "try to win competitions" or "cry and confront people" which, as I've said above, may be good strategies but are not the result of calculating an unexploitable line.
Imagine that it's theoretically possible to solve a multiplayer game like full-ring poker and it in fact has been solved.
We're still no closer to a "solution" for a game like Big Brother due to the irreducibly non-mathematic elements.
Persuasive, sorry, big winners at del lago casino seems, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
I don't want to come off as dickish; I enjoy talking about game theory and am glad you are engaging in this discussion.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
To use Mathematics of Poker as an example, part 2 is not game theory, but part 3 is.
I think he draws the line as clearly as I do.
I'm only being a stickler for this because it is actually relevant to my point that Game Theory is misunderstood.
You are clearly in the top 0.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
I am confident the skittles graph was pure exploitive play.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
One thing to keep in mind is that Game Theory is used to model situations more complicated than big brother.
All the thinks you list are just variables.
Sure they are hard to model, but more complicated things have been modeled.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.
Weightlifting is a bad example field for game theory because there are not agents in opposition.
Maybe there are but that is just to abstract for me.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to vanessa big brother game theory wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most vanessa big brother game theory mine comes from poker.
I stand by the fact that her game is misunderstood by just about everyone.
The bowling veto is the most recent example.
The aggression argument is admittedly weak but my intuition says it is correct.
Big Brother is a young game.
Consider the 17th poker tournament ever played.
Realistically we should expect to see a new "best player" every year.
I anticipate that these players will play more aggressive than Will, Dan, and Derrick.
My introduction to game theory was poker as well.
I think the poker community is very a poor source of information about game theory though, with the exception of Bill Chens book.
It's been see more while since I've dusted off Mathematics of Poker and I could have this wrong, but I remember a discussion of game theory in it that considered a hypothetical opponent with perfectly-exploitative play and reasons from there to develop GTO strategies to counter it.
I agree that not many other poker books discuss game theory, but a notable exception I found was Philip Newall's The Intelligent Poker Player and Further Limit Hold'Em.
He mostly focuses on HULHE where there's a lot of concrete things to say about GTO play and has a similar approach to the topic: he considers an exploitative line, finds an exploit, modifies it, and keeps putting epicycles on the strategy until it approaches GTO.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux vanessa big brother game theory the show.
If we put each player in solitary confinement where they could only communicate through terminals with preset messages "friend" and "betray" or whatever then it would be conceivable, but in real life when one houseguest tries to "friend" it goes very differently than when another does because of differences in nearly unlimited variables.
Yes, some very complicated things have been modeled by economists, but not, to my knowledge, "human relationships" in a way that would be necessary to yield useful results.
I don't know how I feel about aggression.
It still seems like a hard concept to quantify in Big Brother and, depending on how it was defined, might not correlate to the most important aspects of a winning strategy.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I understand your perspective, and it is common in the poker world.
At the end of the day it is just terminology, and "game theory" is a bad name for the field because it sound so general.
Game theory is a field of mathematics that is well defined though.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
Ultimately everything can be modeled, but the usefulness of the model could be called into question.
Imagine if you boiled all the social interactions down to a single value that represented the trust one person has for another.
So the model is a set of values that represent trust between individuals.
I think there are situations where the model could be effective.
For instance the situation where you want to target a well connected player to break up relationships while minimizing the damage done to your own relationships.
Obviously more complicated better models exist.
đ„ Vanessa Rousso - Game Theory - YouTube
Software - MORE
Since she came in third place on Big Brother 17, Vanessa Rousso has seemingly been on a mission to stay in the spotlight and live her life at the same time. You know, like out of a house with.
Enjoy!
She also uses her power to create game states where her opponents are incentivized to act in ways that benefit her.
When players start to introduce aggressive strategies they are criticized, but ultimately the aggressive strategies dominate.
You can see this in the history of chess, backgammon, poker, etc.
Vanessa is the best openly aggressive player to play the game.
I think game theory's application to Big Click to see more is widely overstated.
Sure you can "solve" some easy problems like endgame scenarios or preferable BOB nominations with a Skittles arrangement on the HOH coffee table.
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple and obvious game theory can be used.
But game theory can't really tell you anything about "big picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game.
It's much more about social skills and charisma and, in parts, physical competitions than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Vanessa isn't tapping into any strategic knowledge base that has eluded other intelligent players for sixteen seasons.
She's making smart decisions the same way all the others do, and can be subjected to the same sort of criticism.
The skill ceiling for strategic thinking is really not that high.
There's a reason ordinary people can do just fine on Big Brother even though they could never consistently win in games like chess, backgammon, or poker.
Ie, can you give an example of a player who made a demonstrably-wrong move that was, nevertheless, widely supported by fanbase?
I think hou're misunderstanding Vanessa's use of game theory.
It's not about having a tool that kther people don't have, it's about having familiarity and experience with that tool, using it efficiently, and in Vanessa's case using it explicitly she got the https://gsdonline.ru/big/how-to-win-big-on-doubledown-casino-slots.html talking in terms of incentives; she made it easier for others to see their positions and influenced them to act a little bit more on "reason" and a little bit less on whim.
Vanessa is not only a game theory expert, she's a successful pro poker player.
She has been using game theory directly and deeply much of her life.
Naturally she is going to handle it with a deftness others cannot.
She is relatively less certain that far out from the endgame, of course, but it has its use and frankly we're not even going to be able to see or even infer all of the things she's done with it even if she tried, in futility, to explain it all to use in words.
My personal theory for why Vanessa is not owning her game in the DR, besides PR reasons, is she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She's always running through scenarios, making progress on her thinking, coming to new conclusions, realizing things she has missed.
She ain't got time to try and whittle that down for soundbites that may be misunderstand anyway.
She doesn't need honest DR sessions to https://gsdonline.ru/big/the-big-payoff-game-show.html her game.
On the contrary, the time to be honest has not surfaced yet I imagine it'll be during the finale and she is actually bettering her game by utilizing the DR the way she is.
PR has a lot to do with the way she portrays herself in those DR sessions, in that she HAS to be cognitive of AFP, but I think it boils down to exactly what says: she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She has no incentive to use her time explaining what can already be deduced by viewers as strategy.
It simply does not benefit her in any way.
What you're talking about is really just smart strategy, not "game theory" in the formal sense she would have studied at Duke.
Game theory is about taking mathematically well-defined games, modeling their possible moves using trees or matrices, finding equilibria, comparing optimal unexploitable strategies with exploitable ones, and the like.
As I said above, there are choices in Big Brother where this can be relevant like the final five Skittles scenariobut even then it's very basic stuff that smart players do every season.
Yes, Vanessa has an edge in strategic thinking as an educated poker player, but OP's post claims that 99% of the fans don't understand Vanessa's plays because they haven't studied game theory.
That's just not true.
Game theory may deal with scenarios that have a "perfect" or "right" answer but it is applicable to more vague situations, situations with more variables.
Naturally, in a vanessa big brother game theory scenario, certain relevant variable will be intentionally and unintentionally ignored, but connect that with well thought out prioritization of variables, as well as carefully considering what are variaables in the first place, ndnuour game theory is perfectly serviceble.
And you can get better at doing different parts of this with practice like Vanessa has.
Game theory is not just about "solvable" scenarios or else Vanessa would not be dumb enough to claim it isuseful in the BB house.
She knows the BB game is not solvable.
Of course she does.
There are too many variables.
She can do this more mechanically and naturally than most because of her experience.
At first I thought this was an obscure branch of the field I hadn't heard of, but Google hasn't heard of it either.
I don't think the term "game theory" is apt for most BB decisions even if they are strategic and involve maximizing EV across variables--ie, not all game strategies are considered "game theory.
Yes, Vanessa is smart, but there's no mysticism behind this "game theory" strategy of hers, no reason why most fans couldn't understand or appreciate her moves, and no fundamental difference between her gameplay and many others' before her.
I also also think OP's two points about GTO play and aggression, which seem to be considering "game theory" in the more formal sense of the term as I've been using it, are are gross oversimplifications and don't really apply.
You are actually supporting my claim by calling the skittles graphs game theory.
That was pure decision theory because it depended on her perception of her opponents strategies.
As an example of my point, consider bowling veto.
Consider the game state that Steve created, Austin's interests were in opposition to the twins, so Vanessa encouraged Julia to make a decision where Austin could not exploit her.
Vanessa truly believes that it was in Julia's best interest to select Austin.
The general consensus Julia was manipulated into a bad decision because Austin was on "her side of the house".
As I said below I think your definition of of game theory is too narrow.
On the bowling veto, I suspect Vanessa didn't actually think that and was just looking out for herself.
Clearly the best move, and Austwins' plan, was for Julia to win the veto by having the others throw it to her.
You're right that she prevented Austin from "exploiting" her, but he was never going to exploit her.
If anything, I think this demonstrates that talking about "unexploitable strategies" in a game all about interpersonal relationships doesn't usually make sense.
Austin was unlikely to throw the veto, and if he did, Julia would have voted him out vs Vanessa.
Julia did not care about protecting Austin and Austin did not care about protecting Julia.
Th interpersonal relationships are just information that informs each players strategy.
All forms of strategy are still valid.
My read on him could be wrong, and he very well might have been hilariously voted out because of it, but I think he was sincere in his plans to throw the veto if it was down to just him and the twins.
I think the "general consensus" sees it this way and that's why they think Julia's decision was wrong.
But I agree that if your assumption was correct then so was Vanessa's advice.
That is the beauty of Game Theory.
Vanessa's advice does not depend on those assumptions, while all other strategies do.
Yeah, I still just don't see that as what she was doing or trying to say though.
When she says to Julia "this was the right move for your game" I don't think she means "right" in a narrow GTO sense as opposed to the potentially better "exploitable" strategies we're discussing here.
After her argument with Austin after the competition she admitted her advice wasn't best.
I guess we won't know for sure until we read her promised blogs, but I would be shocked if she considered this a place where she was being intentional between GTO and exploitative strategies and was trying to advise Julia as such.
She did say to Julia in the bathroom after the competition, "trust me I'm a game theory expert.
I don't think it was an conscious use of game theory, it was just such an obvious move for someone with that experience.
I have no doubt that Vanessa would have done that same move if she was in Julia's spot.
This is what I mean by Vanessa's game being misinterpreted.
At the very least one of us is misinterpreting it!
Game theorists themselves say game theory is overstated, so it's hilarious that Vanessa thinks she's tapping into some strategic genius.
She's just being a liar, and a good one.
That's the strategy she's used this season I think game theory is misunderstood.
It is read article "math that creates the best strategy".
It is a way of constructing strategies that are hard to exploit.
If your opponents are weak players it is easy to create strategies that out perform those that game theory optimal.
The ultimate goal is to maximize utility typically money.
You can create a strategy that earns a lot of money, but is exploitable.
If you opponent does not have the skill set to exploit it, then that strategy can earn more than vanessa big brother game theory game theory optimal one.
You can study simple games and their game theory optimal solutions, then use this knowledge to extrapolate strategies for more complicated games.
I do not believe Vanessa is using any direct complex game theory calculations in game.
I do think she created a strategy that is influenced by her knowledge of games and game theory.
In particular, game theory optimal strategies are always more aggressive than experts expect, and they are immune to exploitation.
The skittles end game graph has nothing to do with game theory.
It was based on her incorrect perception of opponent strategies eg if John was HOH and Steve won veto, Steve would evict Liz.
Game theory is about constructing strategies that don't depend on opponent strategies.
Funny enough, I'm arguing with meh100 above that their definition of game theory is too broad, and I think yours is too narrow.
While finding unexploitable strategies Nash equilibrium online t20 games big bash an element of the study of game theory, it encompasses a lot more than that.
I think the Skittles graph decision falls squarely within normal usage of the term.
It is true that you can study simpler, solved games as a model for complex, unsolved ones.
HUNLHE poker is still a long way from being solved, but game-theory-informed strategies permeate top levels of play.
However, I would point out that poker's driver big ben gamepad nature is just a problem of computing power: there exists a perfect GTO strategy for HUNLHE poker at each stack size out there, we just haven't discovered it yet.
Contrast this with Big Brother, which has social and physical aspects as core to the game.
Unlike poker, which is pure game theory all the way down, BB cannot be reduced to mathematically defined variables, and unlimited computing power could not give you anything close to a big picture strategy for the game.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
Sure, optimal play in some solved games turned out to be more aggressive than once thought, but to extrapolate from that to "GTO play is always more aggressive than expected" is a huge leap.
And then to say "so Vanessa's aggressive play in BB is also game-theory supported" is an even bigger leap.
I'm not sure how you could even quantify "aggression" in a game like Big Brother like you can in poker.
Colloquially, Audrey and Devin played the most "aggressive" games.
Game theory does not include exploitative strategies, there is no grey area there.
The skittles graph has nothing to do with game theory.
Sorry, but this is just patently false.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
We agree that historically GTO strategies have been surprisingly aggressive when compared to domain experts opinion.
Contrast this with Big Brother You can't compare HU poker to multi player Big Brother.
There is no nash equilibrium for multiplayer poker either.
I'm not sure what this proves though.
Its not all about equilibrium.
A game theory strategy is, by definition, unexploitative and vanessa big brother game theory, yes.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
On the poker side, The Mathematics of Poker does this well, or either of Philip Newall's books.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I click to see more what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
Even if you want claim her resulting decision wasn't truly game theoretic "unexploitable" I agreeI suggest it's the closest thing you'll find in the Big Brother house to game theory inspired reasoning or applied game theory skills.
It's certainly a lot closer than "hide behind a showmance" or "try to win competitions" or "cry and confront people" which, as I've said above, may be good strategies but are not the result of calculating an unexploitable line.
Imagine that it's theoretically possible to solve a multiplayer game like full-ring poker and it in fact has been solved.
We're still no closer to a "solution" for a game like Big Brother due to the irreducibly non-mathematic elements.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
I don't want to come off as dickish; I enjoy talking about game theory and am glad you are engaging in this discussion.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
To use Mathematics of Poker as an example, part 2 is not game theory, but part 3 is.
I think he draws the line as clearly as I do.
I'm only being a stickler for this because it is actually relevant to my point that Game Theory is misunderstood.
You are clearly in the top 0.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; please click for source you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
I am confident the skittles graph was pure exploitive play.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
One thing to keep in mind is that Game Theory is used to model situations more complicated than big brother.
All the thinks you list are just variables.
Sure they are hard to model, but more complicated things have been vanessa big brother game theory />As the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.
Weightlifting is a bad example field for game theory because there are not agents in opposition.
Maybe there are but that is just to abstract for me.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
I stand by the fact that her game is misunderstood by just about everyone.
The bowling veto is the most recent example.
The aggression argument is admittedly weak but my intuition says it is correct.
Big Brother is a young game.
Consider the 17th poker tournament ever played.
Realistically we should expect to see a new "best player" every year.
I anticipate that these players will play more aggressive than Will, Dan, and Derrick.
My introduction to game theory was poker as well.
I think the poker community is very a poor source of information about game theory though, with the exception of Bill Chens book.
It's been a while since I've dusted off Mathematics of Poker and I could have this wrong, but I remember a discussion of game theory in it that considered a hypothetical opponent with perfectly-exploitative play and reasons from there to develop GTO strategies to counter it.
I agree that not many other poker books discuss game theory, but a notable exception I found was Philip Newall's The Intelligent Poker Player and Further Limit Hold'Em.
He mostly focuses on HULHE where there's a lot of concrete things to say about GTO play and has a similar approach to the topic: he considers an exploitative line, finds an exploit, modifies it, and keeps putting epicycles on the strategy until it approaches GTO.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
If we put each player in solitary confinement where they could only communicate through terminals with preset messages "friend" and "betray" or whatever then it would be conceivable, but in real life when one houseguest tries to "friend" it goes very differently than when another does because of differences in nearly unlimited variables.
Yes, some very complicated things have been modeled by economists, but not, to my knowledge, "human relationships" in a way that would be necessary to yield useful results.
I don't know how I feel about aggression.
It still seems like a hard concept to quantify in Big Brother and, depending on how it was defined, might not correlate to the most important aspects of a winning strategy.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I understand your perspective, and it is common in the poker world.
At the end of the day it is just terminology, and "game theory" is a bad name for the field because it sound so general.
Game theory is a field of mathematics that is well defined though.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
Ultimately everything can be modeled, but the usefulness of the model could be called into question.
Imagine if you boiled all the social interactions down to a single value that represented the trust one person has for another.
So the model is a set of values that represent trust between individuals.
I think there are situations where the model could be effective.
For instance the situation where you want to target a well connected player to break up relationships while minimizing the damage done to your own relationships.
Obviously more complicated better models exist.
I cannot be the only one who thinks that Vanessa from Big Brother 17 looks exactly like Iggy Azalea. That's impossible when their resemblance is so obvious. When this season first started, Iggy.
Enjoy!
Rousso has two younger sisters: Tiffany, a high school teacher and contestant on the eighteenth season of Big Brother and Leticia, an optometrist. In college, she was on the Dean's list. After studying some game theory, she became proficient with the Rubik's Cube and then chess.
Enjoy!
Vanessa Ashley Rousso born February 5, 1983 is an American professional player,and television personality.
Born inNew York, Rousso holds with the United States and France.
Rousso was a member of from 2006 to 2015, with the online name Lady Maverick, and was a spokesperson for from 2009 to 2013.
She has earned money as a professional poker player since 2005, and has become one of the game's.
She has placed in the money seventeen times at the.
As of October 2017Rousso ranks among the top ten women in poker history in terms of all-time money winnings.
Rousso has been a pro-gambling campaigner and activist.
She has appeared on television in several cash or charity poker competition, and finished in third place as a contestant on the of.
Rousso began talking and reading at early ages says her mother, Cynthia Ferrara.
Born in New York, she moved with her family to France at the age of three.
She lived inin her father's homeland until she was 10, when she moved briefly to.
After her parents divorced in 1992, her mother moved Vanessa to to be near her maternal grandparents.
Rousso attended Wellington Landings Middle School.
The oldest of three athletic girls, Rousso was active on the high schooland teams.
She also played and for fun.
In debating, Rousso excelled in national debating tournaments in policy debating.
Her mother is a guidance counselor at.
In 2001, Rousso graduated as valedictorian of her high school inFlorida.
She maintained a 4.
She founded the Environmental Club and served as its president.
She was also active as avarsity swimmer, and volunteer for.
Rousso has two younger sisters: Tiffany, a high school teacher and contestant vanessa big brother game theory the and Leticia, an optometrist.
In college, she was on the.
After studying someshe became proficient with the and then.
However, because she considers both to be fairly objective static games, she began to prefer poker, which incorporated human that allows for inferior hands to win.
She graduated early from after two and a half years with a major in and a minor in in December 2003.
Her collegiate duration of two and a half years was the shortest time to graduate in the history of Duke.
Rousso began law school in 2004 and was the inaugural recipient of the Chaplin Scholarship from the.
During school she served on the editorial board of the University of Miami Law Review.
A poker player since the age of five, Rousso began serious play during her summer break from law school.
Rousso did not initially finish law school, dropping out to pursue her burgeoning poker career instead.
However, she returned to school in the fall of 2017, and graduated in the Spring of 2018.
Now, excluding online winnings, she ranks among the top five women in poker history in terms games with big skill trees all-time money winnings.
She currently resides part-time inNevada and part-time inFlorida.
This enabled her to afford entry into the World Poker Tour event at the in Vegas.
She has been televised numerous times on both and the among others.
She has made several appearances on the television program.
Rousso has also been televised as part of the World Poker Tour.
She is known for wearing a cap, headphones and designer sunglasses.
Her first win in a professional event came on June 13, 2005, inNevada, during the No-Limit Hold'em Summer Series.
Rousso joined the professional poker tour in April 2006, and by October was among the top 80 in earnings that year.
By that time she was spending Tuesday through Thursday taking her law school classes, spending the rest of the week vanessa big brother game theory in poker tournaments and fielding endorsement offers from online poker clubs.
At she had three in the money finishes.
By 2007, Rousso was a notable poker star.
In October 2007, Rousso was part of a contingent of poker industry representatives and leaders of the 800,000-member who flew to to attempt to convince the to overturn the 2006.
The law compels financial institutions to monitor and stop their customers' cash transfers to unlawful online gaming sites.
The group met with both the and the.
She spoke in favor of a proposal by to license and regulate online gambling.
The alliance also spoke in favor of the Skill Game Protection Act proposed by to exempt poker, mah-jongg, chess, bridge and other games where contestants compete against each other rather than the "house" from the Unlawful Vanessa big brother game theory Gambling Enforcement Act.
In May 2009, Frank, who had become the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services in 2007, continued his efforts to "establish a framework to allow licensed gambling operators to process bets from players in the United States," with the support of the Poker Players Alliance and among others.
She had originally placed third in the event, but the winner was found to have violated the Pokerstars terms of service, which caused a disqualification ruling and caused all contestants to be elevated one place in the rankings.
At she again had three in the money finishes.
In the head-to-head single-elimination 2009 tournament, Rousso made it to the finals of the 64-person field before losing to.
Along the way to her runner-up finish, she defeated, and.
Previously, 's 2007 semi-final appearance had been the best female finish in the annual event.
The March 6â8 tournament was broadcast on over six consecutive Sundays from April 12 â May 17, 2009.
In May 2009, Rousso won the 79-entrant 25,000 EPT High Roller Championship, which had a first prize of 720,000.
The win propelled Rousso to sixteenth place on the 2009 earnings list as of May 5.
In 2009, Rousso spoke in favor of changes to Florida gambling laws that would remove caps on buy-ins and wagers on poker in the state.
She felt the gambling limitations precluded more strategic and skillful deeper-stack competition and said that Florida gamblers "don't have enough chips in front of them to play out the bets and raises that are required in the skillful aspect of the game".
This cap still prohibits large tournaments with multi-thousand dollar buy-ins from occurring in Florida.
The camp related poker-playing and strategies to the strategies of military conflict in 's book.
The camp's website makes the analogy of the Art of War and the Art of Poker.
In the main event, she busted out on day 6 officially known as day 2B.
Rousso will be hosting Stars of Poker in France.
Her sponsorship with PokerStars ended in February 2015.
Pokerstars approached about including a poker player in their 2009 Swimsuit edition.
In her online blog on January 4, 2009, Rousso confirmed that she participated that week in a photo shoot invisit web page she was there for the poker tournament.
Rousso appeared in an advertising feature paid for by PokerStars, rather than the swimsuit article itself, in the February 10, 2009 swimsuit issue.
In the advertisement, Russo appeared in a bottom and cutoff top, in keeping with the swimsuit theme.
Rousso's thoughts on the Sports Illustrated publicity was that "It was a great opportunity for poker in general and for me in particular.
Rousso became an official GoDaddy Girl, replacing.
Rousso's contract as a spokesperson for the company was renewed through to the final 2013 Heads-Up tournament event.
Rousso is regarded as one of the sexiest poker players in the world, ranking 18th by in 2010, and in the top 20 by in 2010.
Rousso has worked with American Poker Player, writing onand worked withthink, big top casino reviews can poker to its "100 Most Powerful Women".
She was a celebrity judge on where she helped award some of her own money to contestants.
She was a contestant on of the reality television show in 2015, finishing in third place.
Rousso has become a music producer and DJ and has formed a DJ Duo called N1TEL1TE with her life partner Melissa Ouellet.
The duo released their first song, "Kiss Face", in February 2017.
The two were vanessa big brother game theory in 2008 and eloped in early 2009, making them the first married couple to be featured on click same major online poker team.
The couple separated in 2012, with both announcing the breakup on their Twitter accounts, with Vanessa writing "Despite great mutual fondness and respect, Chad and I have separated.
Archived from on August 24, 2010.
Retrieved October 7, 2008.
Archived from on January 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Archived from on April 1, 2009.
Retrieved May 10, 2009.
Archived from on March 8, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Retrieved October 26, vanessa big brother game theory />Retrieved September 13, 2015.
Retrieved September 24, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved August 5, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 5, 2016.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
University of Miami School of Law Dean's Notes.
Retrieved May 9, vanessa big brother game theory />Archived from on August 25, 2010.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
University of Miami Law Review.
Retrieved May 9, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Salant and Lorraine Woellert May 6, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 4, 2009.
Retrieved May 7, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 6, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 11, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Archived from on June 5, 2009.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Harrah's License Company, LLC.
Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
Retrieved July vanessa big brother game theory, 2009.
Retrieved January 23, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, 2010.
Harrah's Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Retrieved June 21, 2010.
Retrieved January 8, 2011.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved February 17, 2015.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Archived from on March 12, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved October 11, 2013.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved December 2, 2009.
Retrieved October 26, 2017.
Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved November 13, 2014.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved September 26, 2015.
Retrieved January 5, 2016.
Retrieved January 5, 2016.
Vanessa emerged from the Big Brother house to a spectacular consolation prize: Her girlfriend Mel proposed to her at the wrap party.
By using this site, you agree to the and.
WikipediaÂź is a registered trademark of thea non-profit organization.
đ Vanessa Rousso - Wikipedia
Software - MORE
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple (and obvious) game theory can be used. But game theory can't really tell you anything about "big picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game. It's much more about social skills and charisma (and, in parts, physical competitions) than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Enjoy!
She also uses her power to create game states where her opponents are incentivized to act in ways that benefit her.
When players start to introduce aggressive strategies they are criticized, but ultimately vanessa big brother game theory aggressive strategies dominate.
You can see this in the history of chess, backgammon, poker, etc.
Vanessa is the best openly aggressive player to play the game.
I think game theory's application to Big Brother is widely overstated.
Sure you can "solve" some easy problems like endgame scenarios or preferable BOB nominations with a Skittles arrangement on the HOH coffee table.
There are some "tactical" decisions where simple and obvious game theory can be used.
But game theory can't really tell you anything about "big picture" strategy in Big Brother; it's not that sort of game.
It's much more about social skills and charisma and, in parts, physical competitions than solving for a Nash equilibrium.
Vanessa isn't tapping into any strategic knowledge base that has eluded other intelligent players for sixteen seasons.
She's making smart decisions the same way all the others do, and can be subjected to the same sort of criticism.
The skill ceiling for strategic thinking is really not that high.
article source a reason ordinary people can do just fine on Big Brother even though they could never consistently win in games like chess, backgammon, or poker.
Ie, can you give an example of a player who made a demonstrably-wrong move that was, nevertheless, widely supported by fanbase?
I think hou're misunderstanding Vanessa's use vanessa big brother game theory game theory.
It's not about having a tool that kther people don't have, it's about having familiarity and experience with that tool, using it efficiently, and in Vanessa's case using it explicitly she got the house talking in terms of incentives; she made it easier for others to see their positions and influenced them to act a little bit more on "reason" and a little bit less on whim.
Vanessa is not only a game theory expert, she's a successful pro poker player.
She has been using game theory directly and deeply much of her life.
Naturally she is going to handle it with a deftness others cannot.
Even before the endgame she's running through scenarios few can handle.
She is relatively less certain that far out from the endgame, of course, but it has its use and frankly we're not even going to be able to see or even infer all of the things she's done with it even if she tried, in futility, to explain it all to use in words.
My personal theory for why Vanessa is not owning her game in the DR, besides PR reasons, is she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She's always running through scenarios, making progress on her thinking, coming to new conclusions, realizing things she has missed.
She ain't got time to try and whittle that down for soundbites that may be misunderstand anyway.
She doesn't need honest DR sessions to better her game.
On the contrary, click at this page time to be honest has not surfaced yet I imagine it'll be during the finale and she is actually bettering her game by utilizing the DR the way she is.
PR has a lot to do with the way she portrays herself in those DR sessions, in that she HAS to be cognitive of AFP, but I think it boils down to exactly what says: she simply doesn't have the energy or desire to summerize her thinking.
Sbe'd rather do more thinking than sit down and try to summerize it.
She has no incentive to use her time explaining what can already be deduced by viewers as strategy.
It simply does not benefit her in any way.
What you're talking about is really just smart strategy, not "game theory" in the formal sense she would have studied at Duke.
Game theory is about taking mathematically well-defined games, modeling their possible moves using trees or matrices, finding equilibria, comparing optimal unexploitable strategies with exploitable ones, and the like.
As I said above, there are choices in Big Brother where this can be relevant like the final five Skittles scenariobut even then it's very basic stuff that smart players do every season.
Yes, Vanessa has an edge in strategic thinking as an educated poker player, but OP's post claims that 99% of the fans don't understand Vanessa's plays because they haven't studied game theory.
That's just not true.
Game theory may deal with scenarios that have a "perfect" or "right" answer but it is applicable to more vague situations, situations with more variables.
Naturally, in a vague scenario, certain relevant variable will be intentionally and unintentionally ignored, but connect that with well thought out prioritization of variables, as well as carefully considering what are variaables in the first place, ndnuour game theory is perfectly serviceble.
And you can get better at doing different parts of this with practice like Vanessa has.
Game theory is not just about "solvable" scenarios or else Vanessa would not be dumb enough to claim it isuseful in the BB house.
She knows the BB game is not solvable.
Of course she does.
There are too many variables.
She can do this more mechanically and naturally than most because of her experience.
At first I thought this was an obscure branch of the field I hadn't heard of, but Google hasn't heard of it https://gsdonline.ru/big/big-free-gallery.html />I don't think the term "game theory" is apt for most BB decisions even if they are strategic and involve maximizing EV across variables--ie, not all game strategies are considered "game theory.
Yes, Vanessa is smart, but there's no mysticism behind this "game theory" strategy of hers, no reason why most fans couldn't understand or appreciate her moves, and no fundamental difference between her gameplay and many others' before her.
I also also think OP's two points about GTO play and aggression, which seem to be considering "game theory" in the more formal sense of the term as I've been using it, are are gross oversimplifications and don't really apply.
You are actually supporting my claim by calling the skittles graphs game theory.
That was pure decision vanessa big brother game theory because it depended on her perception of her opponents strategies.
As an example of my point, consider bowling veto.
Consider the game state that Steve created, Austin's interests were in opposition to the twins, so Vanessa encouraged Julia to make a decision where Austin could not exploit her.
Vanessa truly believes that it was in Julia's best interest to select Austin.
The general consensus Julia was manipulated into a bad decision because Austin was on "her side of the house".
As I said below I think your definition of of game theory is too narrow.
On the bowling veto, I suspect Vanessa didn't actually think that and was just looking out for herself.
Clearly the best move, and Austwins' plan, was for Julia to win the veto by having the others throw it to her.
You're right that she prevented Austin from "exploiting" her, but he was never going to exploit her.
If anything, I think vanessa big brother game theory demonstrates that talking about "unexploitable strategies" in a game all about interpersonal relationships doesn't usually make sense.
Austin was unlikely to throw the veto, and if he did, Julia would have voted him out vs Vanessa.
Julia did not care about protecting Austin and Austin did not care about protecting Julia.
Th interpersonal relationships are just information that informs each players strategy.
All forms of strategy are still valid.
My read on him could be wrong, and he very well might have been hilariously voted out because of it, but I think he was sincere in his plans to throw the veto if it was down to just him and the twins.
I think the "general consensus" sees it this way and that's why they think Julia's decision was wrong.
But I agree that if your assumption was correct then so was Vanessa's advice.
That is the beauty of Game Theory.
Vanessa's advice does not depend on those assumptions, while all other strategies do.
Yeah, I still just don't see that as what she was doing or trying to say though.
When she says to Julia "this was the right move for your game" I don't think she means "right" in a narrow GTO sense as opposed to the potentially better "exploitable" strategies we're discussing here.
After her argument with Austin after the competition she admitted her advice wasn't best.
I guess we won't know for sure until we read her promised blogs, but I would be shocked if she considered this a place where she was being intentional between GTO and exploitative strategies and was trying to advise Julia as such.
She did say to Julia in the bathroom after the competition, "trust me I'm a game theory expert.
I don't think it was an conscious use of game theory, it was just such an obvious move for someone with that experience.
I have no doubt that Vanessa would have done that same move if she was in Julia's spot.
This is what I mean by Vanessa's game being misinterpreted.
At the very least one of us is misinterpreting it!
Game theorists themselves say game theory is overstated, so it's hilarious that Vanessa thinks she's tapping into some strategic genius.
She's just being a liar, and a good one.
That's the strategy she's used this season I think game theory is misunderstood.
It is not "math that creates the best strategy".
It is a way of constructing strategies that are hard to exploit.
If your opponents are weak players it is easy to create strategies that out perform those that game theory optimal.
The ultimate goal is to maximize utility typically money.
You can create a strategy that earns a lot of money, but is exploitable.
If you opponent does not have the skill set to exploit it, then that strategy can earn more than a game theory optimal one.
You can study simple games and their game theory optimal solutions, then use this knowledge to extrapolate strategies for more complicated games.
I do not believe Vanessa is using any direct complex game theory calculations in game.
I do think she created a strategy that is influenced by her knowledge of games and game theory.
In particular, game theory optimal strategies are always more aggressive than experts expect, and they are immune to exploitation.
The skittles end game graph has nothing to do with game theory.
It was based on her incorrect perception of opponent strategies eg if John was HOH and Steve won veto, Steve would evict Liz.
Game theory is about constructing strategies that don't depend on opponent strategies.
Funny enough, I'm arguing with meh100 above that their definition of game theory is too broad, and I think yours is too narrow.
While finding unexploitable strategies Nash equilibrium is an element of the study of game theory, it encompasses a lot more than that.
I think the Skittles graph decision falls squarely within normal usage of the term.
It is true that you can study simpler, solved games as a model for complex, unsolved ones.
HUNLHE poker is still a long way from being solved, but game-theory-informed strategies permeate top levels of play.
However, I would point out that poker's unsolved nature is just a problem of computing power: there exists a perfect GTO strategy for HUNLHE poker at each stack size out there, we just haven't discovered it yet.
Contrast this with Big Brother, which has social vanessa big brother game theory physical aspects as core to the game.
Unlike poker, which is pure game theory all the way down, BB cannot be reduced to mathematically defined variables, and unlimited computing power could not give you anything close to a big picture strategy for the game.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
Sure, optimal play in some solved games turned out vanessa big brother game theory be more aggressive than once thought, but to extrapolate from that to "GTO play is always more aggressive than expected" is a huge leap.
And then to say "so Vanessa's aggressive play in BB is also game-theory supported" is an even bigger leap.
I'm not sure how you could even quantify "aggression" in see more game like Big Brother like you can in poker.
Colloquially, Audrey and Devin played the most "aggressive" games.
Game theory does not include exploitative strategies, there is no grey area there.
The skittles graph has nothing to do with game theory.
Sorry, but this is just patently false.
In fact, it couldn't be true as a widely-held maxim.
We agree that historically GTO strategies have been surprisingly aggressive when compared to domain experts opinion.
Contrast this with Big Brother You can't compare HU poker to multi player Big Brother.
There is no nash equilibrium for multiplayer poker either.
I'm not sure what this proves though.
Its not all about equilibrium.
A game theory strategy is, by definition, unexploitative and unexploitable, yes.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
On the poker side, The Mathematics of Poker does this well, or either of Philip Newall's books.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
Even if you want claim her resulting decision wasn't truly game theoretic "unexploitable" I agreeI suggest it's the backside big thing you'll find in the Big Brother house to game theory inspired reasoning or applied game theory skills.
It's certainly a lot closer than "hide behind a showmance" or "try to win competitions" or "cry and confront people" which, as I've said above, may be good strategies but are not the result of calculating an unexploitable line.
Imagine that it's theoretically possible to solve a multiplayer game like full-ring poker and it in fact has been solved.
We're still no closer to a "solution" for a game like Big Brother due to the irreducibly non-mathematic elements.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
I don't want to come off as dickish; I enjoy talking about game theory and am glad you are engaging in this discussion.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
However the study of "game theory" as a field and especially in poker and the process of finding GTO solutions absolutely involves considering and reasoning around exploitative lines.
To use Mathematics of Poker as an example, part 2 is not game theory, but part 3 is.
I think he draws the line as clearly as I do.
I'm only being a stickler for this because it is actually relevant to my point that Game Theory is misunderstood.
You are clearly in the top 0.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on Skittles; maybe you and I interpret what she's doing there differently.
I think she actually was trying to find a line where each other houseguest playing best for their game would still benefit her.
I am confident the skittles graph was pure exploitive play.
Persuasive, strong, and charismatic players will continue to dominate the game in almost all important aspects in ways you couldn't model for just like you can't "solve" dating, or weightlifting.
One thing to keep in mind is that Game Theory is used to model situations more complicated than big brother.
All the thinks you list are just variables.
Sure they are hard to model, but more complicated things have been modeled.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.
Weightlifting is a bad example field for game theory because there are not agents in opposition.
Maybe there are but that is just to abstract for me.
I think your claims in the OP are overstated and underdeveloped, but I'm open to being wrong.
What's your background in studying games and game theory?
Most of mine comes from poker.
I stand by the fact that her game is misunderstood by just about everyone.
The bowling veto is the most recent example.
The aggression argument is admittedly weak but my intuition says it is correct.
Big Brother is a young game.
Consider the 17th poker tournament ever played.
Realistically we should expect to see a new "best player" every year.
I anticipate that these players will play more aggressive than Will, Dan, and Derrick.
My introduction to game theory was poker as well.
I think the poker community is very a poor source of information about game theory though, with the exception of Bill Chens book.
It's been a while since I've dusted off Mathematics of Poker and I could have this wrong, but I remember a discussion of game theory in it that considered a hypothetical opponent with perfectly-exploitative play vanessa big brother game theory reasons from there to develop GTO strategies to counter it.
I agree that not many other poker books discuss game theory, but a notable exception I found was Philip See more The Intelligent Poker Player and Further Colorado big game 2019 Hold'Em.
He mostly focuses on HULHE where there's a lot of concrete things to say about GTO play and has a similar approach to the topic: he considers an exploitative line, finds an exploit, modifies it, and keeps putting epicycles on the strategy until it approaches GTO.
This is really the only point I'm big wins on penny slots to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative play in the same sorts of ways.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
If we put each player in solitary confinement where they could only communicate through terminals with preset messages "friend" and "betray" or whatever then it would be conceivable, but in real life when one houseguest tries to "friend" it goes very differently than when another does because of differences in nearly unlimited variables.
Yes, some very complicated things have been modeled by economists, but not, to my knowledge, "human relationships" in a way that would be necessary to yield useful results.
I don't know how I feel about aggression.
It still seems like a hard concept to quantify https://gsdonline.ru/big/the-big-m-casino-fort-myers-fl.html Big Brother and, depending on how it was defined, might not correlate to the most important aspects of a winning strategy.
This is really the only point I'm trying to make above--studying "game theory" in a poker context as Vanessa has involves knowing and using exploitative vanessa big brother game theory in the same sorts of ways.
I understand your perspective, and it is common in the poker world.
At the end of the day it is just terminology, and "game theory" is a bad name for the field because it sound so general.
Game theory is a field of mathematics that is well defined though.
I really don't think you could model Big Brother in a meaningful way given that social interactions and communication are the crux of the show.
Ultimately everything can be modeled, but the usefulness of the model could be called into question.
Imagine if you boiled all the social interactions down to a single value that represented the trust one person has for another.
So the model is a set of values that represent trust between individuals.
I think there are situations where the model could be effective.
For instance the situation where you want to target a well connected player to break up relationships while minimizing the damage done to your own relationships.
Obviously more complicated better models exist.
Big Brother From A Game Theory Perspective Posted in Society and Morals , Spotlight on Humanity , and Television Reviews Big Brother is a potentially psychologically damaging reality game show, which started off in the Netherlands and has versions all around the world.
Enjoy!
đ€ Vanessa Rousso - Game Theory - YouTube
Software - MORE
Despite being considered the best player of Season 17 of CBS' Big Brother, poker pro Vanessa Rousso was evicted in third place.. game theory knowledge, and willingness to make big moves.
Enjoy!
John, the Oft-Nominated, the professional veto-thrower, the man who started one of the strangest blood feuds in Big Brother history when he casually mentioned to Clay that he thought Vanessa was pretty tight with Shelli.
Johnny Mac was on the block, again.
Johnny Mac just wanted to get some rest.
He crawled onto the airplane economy-class seat that is his bed and the best metaphor I can come up with for his tough, unflashy, remarkably functional gameplay.
When you came up and saw me talking to the twins and Austin?
Vanessa listened patiently as he slept.
Johnny Mac was snoring; it sounded suspicious.
At this point, I am willing to call it: Vanessa has the single most bizarre successful strategy of any player I have ever studied.
She has an uncanny sense for shifting power dynamics, but only because she seems to think that power dynamics are shifting all of the time.
She operates on a high level of paranoia; she constantly assumes that her closest allies are turning against her.
The fact that her closest allies are turning against her is proof that her strategy works.
But her closest allies are only turning against her because they are so annoyed that she thinks they are turning against her.
Vanessa has stumbled onto some new plane of house power: Her worst fears are made manifest only because she fears those fears so vanessa big brother game theory />This could ultimately be the Final Act narrative of this season, if Austin or Vanessa or Julia can win the next HoH and keep dominion over the declining opposition.
But Liz surprised meâand so did Vanessa.
Liz declared Johnny Mac an enigma, which is pretty accurate.
I initially pegged Johnny Mac as a loon, but I recognize now that he might be link only sane person inside the house.
ASIDE: Someday, someone who watches the feeds will explain to me how Becky so completely lost the vote against Vanessa.
But Johnny Mac has worked with elements of the Sixth Sense before.
In the Clay-Shelli showmance, he was the helpful third-wheel little brother.
And he told Austin and Liz some need-to-know information.
How Vanessa was lying to his face about what she told them.
How everyone she has ever had a blow vanessa big brother game theory with has gone homeâbesides Austin, who was only really https://gsdonline.ru/big/big-bertha-slot-machines.html because Clay and Shelli flipped so completely on sending him home.
But she wanted the option; she wanted to control the veto.
Fortunately for her, alongside her sister and her hipster-Viking boytoy, Liz heads up the most powerful group left in the house.
Julia was not amused.
Liz is the one who smiles occasionally; Julia is the one who is just not having it.
Her sister is Head of Household, and she is maybe just not having it.
This strikes me as a touch of madness; but if Vanessa is pioneering a new kind of mad-chessmaster gameplay, then Johnny Mac is trying to transform the Power Floater strategy into something slightly more aggressive.
Cards on the table: I thought Johnny Mac was a total goon.
Sometimes I still think he is a goon, albeit a lovable one.
And the Johnny Mac we see now is not the Johnny Mac of Week One.
This is a Johnny Mac with a mission: Get Vanessa.
This is a Johnny Mac with an excellent social game.
This is a Johnny Mac so confident in his standing in the house that he threw the newest veto competition immediately.
Last week, I predicted that Becky had no follow-through.
Now, here I am, fully baked and ready to rock.
And the only thing I like better than groupies is butter.
Whoever brings me all the butter will win the power of veto.
Meg had one of the all-time great real-life pratfalls, proving that everything in the life of Meg is just one big opening montage of a late-2000s romantic comedy.
The battle came down to Austin and Lizâand Liz took the Power of Veto, securing all the power in the house this week.
She was gunning for me, shooting straight for me.
Did you see her jump in that competition?
It was, like, a professional athlete style jump.
You think she could stage a professional athlete jump towards me, like as a metaphor?
You find yourself wondering: How the hell does she play poker?
A move that Julia, at least, might support!
Johnny Mac has declared her a mortal enemy.
Meg and James are variously suspicious learn more here her and secretly hostile toward her.
Steve still likes her, but Steve thinks Becky is Satan.
Apparently, Liz has realized all of that.
She kept Vanessa around specifically because she is such a big target: A devious move, albeit one she might regret is Vanessa comes back into power thirsty for twinblood.
But Liz surprised me with another savvy move: At the Veto competition, she diplomatically declared that she was sure one of the players she nominated for eviction would be coming back from jury.
The best of Johnny Mac is yet to come.
Julie Chen https://gsdonline.ru/big/geisha-story-slot-big-win.html as the houseguests battle it out.
Entertainment Weekly is a registered trademark of Meredith Corporation All Rights Reserved.
Entertainment Weekly may receive compensation vanessa big brother game theory some links to products and services on this website.
Offers may be subject to change without notice.
All credit to CBS! Some of Vanessa Roussos (from big brother 17) best moments. Enjoy :)
Enjoy!
đ Vanessa Rousso - Game Theory - YouTube
Software - MORE
Meet Vanessa Rousso. When Vanessa was an undergrad at Duke University, she studied game theory. However, that doesnât necessarily mean her advanced education will give her an advantage against her fellow Houseguests.
Enjoy!
