Lets take a look at some of the theorms and principals of economics and related fields such as game theory so we can find a factual based decision, not an opinion based one.
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic interactions between agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies that will maximize their payoff, given the strategies the other agents choose. It provides a formal modeling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other agents.
Game theory generalizes maximization approaches developed to analyze markets
Via Robert Axelrod's classic book The Evolution of Cooperation, I had come upon the concept of the "non-zero-sum" game, a game in which there isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, but rather the possibility of two winners—or two losers, depending on whether the players successfully cooperate.
After reading Axelrod's book, I had gotten fascinated by the idea that relations among nations are growing more non-zero-sum.
For example: With nations getting more economically intertwined, their fortunes are more closely correlated, for better and for worse. So too with environmental problems like global warming and ozone depletion and exhaustion of the world's fisheries: Nations adversely affected by these problems will either cooperate to solve them and all win, or fail to solve them and all lose. And so on, in various policy areas—controlling the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, the spread of disease, etc.
Economic efficiency describes how well a system generates the maximum desired output a with a given set of inputs and available technology. Efficiency is improved if more output is generated without changing inputs, or in other words, the amount of "friction" or "waste" is reduced. Economists look for Pareto efficiency, which is reached when a change cannot make someone better off without making someone else worse off.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. A system can be called economically efficient if: No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, more output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs, and production ensures the lowest possible per unit cost. These definitions of efficiency are not exactly equivalent. However, they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
In the real world ensuring that nobody is disadvantaged by a change aimed at improving economic efficiency may require compensation of one or more parties. For instance, if a change in economic policy dictates that a legally protected monopoly ceases to exist and that market subsequently becomes competitive and more efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency.
This means the monopolist can be compensated for its loss while still leaving an efficiency gain to be realized by others in the economy, and theoretically the monopolist could gain more by the distribution. Thus, the requirement of nobody being made worse off for a gain to others is met.
Multi-objective optimization (or programming) also known as multi-criteria or multi-attribute optimization, is the process of simultaneously optimizing two or more conflicting objectives subject to certain constraints.
Multiobjective optimization problems can be found in various fields: product and process design, finance, aircraft design, the oil and gas industry, automobile design, or wherever optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between two or more conflicting objectives.
Maximizing profit and minimizing the cost of a product; maximizing performance and minimizing fuel consumption of a vehicle; and minimizing weight while maximizing the strength of a particular component are examples of multi-objective optimization problems.
If a multiobjective problem is well formed, there should not be a single solution that simultaneously minimizes each objective to its fullest. In each case we are looking for a solution for which each objective has been optimized to the extent that if we try to optimize it any further, then the other objective(s) will suffer as a result. Finding such a solution, and quantifying how much better this solution is compared to other such solutions (there will generally be many) is the goal when setting up and solving a multiobjective optimization problem.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. It is the using of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services.[1] A system can be called economically efficient if:
No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.
These definitions of efficiency are not equivalent, but they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
An economic system is more efficient if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources. Market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.[2] The first fundamental welfare theorem provides some basis for this belief, as it states that any perfectly competitive market equilibrium is efficient (but only if no market imperfections exist).
The brilliant John Nash has developed work on the role of money in society. In the context that people can be so controlled and motivated by money that they may not be able to reason rationally about it.
This is Effrens case tho it seemed rational for him to choose to keep the 25k dollar first place prize, it puts the other players (lets call it PE=Pool Economy) at a higher loss/disadvantage.
Now I’m sure we can all assume that the full fields did not occur in this tournament because of prior un-ethical pratices in the IPT and other such organizations. The P.E. was/is gun shy and rightfully so, and this trickled all the way down to spectators, vendors etc.(of which are part of the PE)
If we had went with Effrens decision to keep the bulk of the money for 1st place, we cast aside the needs of the rest of the PE. So who cares right? WRONG! By the more efficient distribution of money thorought the PE, everyone gets a more FAIR share. Which makes players happy, as we all know this is not a cheap walk in the park. Hotels cost, food, travel, entries. So without this distribution the ones who didn’t get first are at a much greater disadvantage, with better distribution everyones risk values go down. Thus producing a more efficient system.
With a more efficient system, people feel more fairly treated so they will have better opinions. With better opinions, word gets around about “NEXT YEAR”
Now next year is going to look better to the entire PE, which supports the possibility that MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP. Now if the Full fields show up, there should be no problems per se. All because the majority of the PE chose to share the limited amount of cash in a more efficient manner.
If the prize would have stayed at 25k for 1st, the PE would undoubtly be not very happy…not at all. So you know what happens, word gets out people get angry and no one shows up and Effren gets to play the janitor for $50 dollar sets. By them sharing Effren has a much increased probability of having a much larger purse next year. He thought about today and not tomorrow, and his actions/decisions would in effect create a highly possible loss for him next year.
Basic lemans economic law: In a team consisted of multiple players each with a decision to make casts a vote. Initial thought is to do whats best for the individual players self. This could and most likely cause conflict throught the team. The team prospers most when each individual on the team does what is best for themselves and the TEAM! Tho you are naturally going to have compromises, the team or PE in the end becomes more efficient thus we have a bigger better tournament next year.
Effrens choice tho initially thought by him to be logical, was inherently illogical due to the fact that he arrived at the solution to the formula with only a partial data set.
And you can’t argue with math my friends…
And all this argument of the guranteed this and that...no one showed up what do you expect...but you can't blame the players being gun shy. Its not like we got Chevrolet, Budweiser, Dupont, and NIke sponsoring this event. They did the best they could with what they had, and made logical decisions to help make this tournament happen again. What makes some of you so special that you feel your opinion is based on anything valid. If the fields would have been full everything would have went as planned so its all the players that decided not to go's fault.
They provided the venue and the money, the field fell short on their end of the bargain. We don't have corporate sponsorship like golf...Instead of bashing something that was great, and maybe trying to do something besides being such a HATER. You people act like we just got it in the a** again like with the IPT...get off your high horses because you ain't even got a sliver of the amount of balls to try and put on something like this, much less take the losses that they are gonna have.
What have you done for our sport lately is what I want to know. Put up or shut up, the haters kept their money at their house. Get a huge event going that we definitely NEED, and b****, b****, b**** cuz it was not perfect to your almighty standards. Ignorance in leaps and bounds...its amazing.
ATTITUDE CHECK CHUMPS!
Grey Ghost
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic interactions between agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies that will maximize their payoff, given the strategies the other agents choose. It provides a formal modeling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other agents.
Game theory generalizes maximization approaches developed to analyze markets
Via Robert Axelrod's classic book The Evolution of Cooperation, I had come upon the concept of the "non-zero-sum" game, a game in which there isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, but rather the possibility of two winners—or two losers, depending on whether the players successfully cooperate.
After reading Axelrod's book, I had gotten fascinated by the idea that relations among nations are growing more non-zero-sum.
For example: With nations getting more economically intertwined, their fortunes are more closely correlated, for better and for worse. So too with environmental problems like global warming and ozone depletion and exhaustion of the world's fisheries: Nations adversely affected by these problems will either cooperate to solve them and all win, or fail to solve them and all lose. And so on, in various policy areas—controlling the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, the spread of disease, etc.
Economic efficiency describes how well a system generates the maximum desired output a with a given set of inputs and available technology. Efficiency is improved if more output is generated without changing inputs, or in other words, the amount of "friction" or "waste" is reduced. Economists look for Pareto efficiency, which is reached when a change cannot make someone better off without making someone else worse off.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. A system can be called economically efficient if: No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, more output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs, and production ensures the lowest possible per unit cost. These definitions of efficiency are not exactly equivalent. However, they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
In the real world ensuring that nobody is disadvantaged by a change aimed at improving economic efficiency may require compensation of one or more parties. For instance, if a change in economic policy dictates that a legally protected monopoly ceases to exist and that market subsequently becomes competitive and more efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency.
This means the monopolist can be compensated for its loss while still leaving an efficiency gain to be realized by others in the economy, and theoretically the monopolist could gain more by the distribution. Thus, the requirement of nobody being made worse off for a gain to others is met.
Multi-objective optimization (or programming) also known as multi-criteria or multi-attribute optimization, is the process of simultaneously optimizing two or more conflicting objectives subject to certain constraints.
Multiobjective optimization problems can be found in various fields: product and process design, finance, aircraft design, the oil and gas industry, automobile design, or wherever optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between two or more conflicting objectives.
Maximizing profit and minimizing the cost of a product; maximizing performance and minimizing fuel consumption of a vehicle; and minimizing weight while maximizing the strength of a particular component are examples of multi-objective optimization problems.
If a multiobjective problem is well formed, there should not be a single solution that simultaneously minimizes each objective to its fullest. In each case we are looking for a solution for which each objective has been optimized to the extent that if we try to optimize it any further, then the other objective(s) will suffer as a result. Finding such a solution, and quantifying how much better this solution is compared to other such solutions (there will generally be many) is the goal when setting up and solving a multiobjective optimization problem.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. It is the using of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services.[1] A system can be called economically efficient if:
No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.
These definitions of efficiency are not equivalent, but they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
An economic system is more efficient if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources. Market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.[2] The first fundamental welfare theorem provides some basis for this belief, as it states that any perfectly competitive market equilibrium is efficient (but only if no market imperfections exist).
The brilliant John Nash has developed work on the role of money in society. In the context that people can be so controlled and motivated by money that they may not be able to reason rationally about it.
This is Effrens case tho it seemed rational for him to choose to keep the 25k dollar first place prize, it puts the other players (lets call it PE=Pool Economy) at a higher loss/disadvantage.
Now I’m sure we can all assume that the full fields did not occur in this tournament because of prior un-ethical pratices in the IPT and other such organizations. The P.E. was/is gun shy and rightfully so, and this trickled all the way down to spectators, vendors etc.(of which are part of the PE)
If we had went with Effrens decision to keep the bulk of the money for 1st place, we cast aside the needs of the rest of the PE. So who cares right? WRONG! By the more efficient distribution of money thorought the PE, everyone gets a more FAIR share. Which makes players happy, as we all know this is not a cheap walk in the park. Hotels cost, food, travel, entries. So without this distribution the ones who didn’t get first are at a much greater disadvantage, with better distribution everyones risk values go down. Thus producing a more efficient system.
With a more efficient system, people feel more fairly treated so they will have better opinions. With better opinions, word gets around about “NEXT YEAR”
Now next year is going to look better to the entire PE, which supports the possibility that MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP. Now if the Full fields show up, there should be no problems per se. All because the majority of the PE chose to share the limited amount of cash in a more efficient manner.
If the prize would have stayed at 25k for 1st, the PE would undoubtly be not very happy…not at all. So you know what happens, word gets out people get angry and no one shows up and Effren gets to play the janitor for $50 dollar sets. By them sharing Effren has a much increased probability of having a much larger purse next year. He thought about today and not tomorrow, and his actions/decisions would in effect create a highly possible loss for him next year.
Basic lemans economic law: In a team consisted of multiple players each with a decision to make casts a vote. Initial thought is to do whats best for the individual players self. This could and most likely cause conflict throught the team. The team prospers most when each individual on the team does what is best for themselves and the TEAM! Tho you are naturally going to have compromises, the team or PE in the end becomes more efficient thus we have a bigger better tournament next year.
Effrens choice tho initially thought by him to be logical, was inherently illogical due to the fact that he arrived at the solution to the formula with only a partial data set.
And you can’t argue with math my friends…
And all this argument of the guranteed this and that...no one showed up what do you expect...but you can't blame the players being gun shy. Its not like we got Chevrolet, Budweiser, Dupont, and NIke sponsoring this event. They did the best they could with what they had, and made logical decisions to help make this tournament happen again. What makes some of you so special that you feel your opinion is based on anything valid. If the fields would have been full everything would have went as planned so its all the players that decided not to go's fault.
They provided the venue and the money, the field fell short on their end of the bargain. We don't have corporate sponsorship like golf...Instead of bashing something that was great, and maybe trying to do something besides being such a HATER. You people act like we just got it in the a** again like with the IPT...get off your high horses because you ain't even got a sliver of the amount of balls to try and put on something like this, much less take the losses that they are gonna have.
What have you done for our sport lately is what I want to know. Put up or shut up, the haters kept their money at their house. Get a huge event going that we definitely NEED, and b****, b****, b**** cuz it was not perfect to your almighty standards. Ignorance in leaps and bounds...its amazing.
ATTITUDE CHECK CHUMPS!
Grey Ghost
Last edited:
:wink:
