Optimum Strategy and Tips metathread strategy
I have had some email correspondence with obsolete about optimum startegy and tips thread strategy for BtS, and the mathematical disciplines involved in establishing a theoretical framework for formulating such a thread. These mathematical disciplines would include advanced modelling methodologies of mathematical statistics, mathematical game theory, and mathematical optimization techniques, such as linear programming. I asked obsolete if he would be interested in a joint to investigate and, hopefully, formulate a strategy and tips thread metastrategy. He replied that he did not have much interest in strategy and tips thread optimum strategy, since in BtS non-optimum strategy and tips thread strategy would be achieved sooner and lead to a higher score. Following is my reply to obsolete--
We are not using the term "optimum thread strategy" in the same sense. First, there is a "pure" optimum thread strategy, which is the correct strategy when nothing is known about threads. This strategy would be developed using a recursive algorithm, and has the characteristic that no opposing thread could do better than break even. To break even, the opposing strategy would have to be a mirror image of the optimum thread. This pure optimum strategy and tips thread fully incorporates mathematical game theory in its decision making. Specifically, in every situation where two or more lines of play have positive EV, then random numbers are used to choose between lines of play. Each alternative is not equally likely. The probability of each playing alternative being chosen must be in direct proportion to its expected value. This is classic mathematical game theory.
This pure optimum thread strategy is bulletproof, and acts as a defensive shield against deity AI. It is analogous to basic strategy in blackjack, where nothing is known about the composition of the undealt deck. The second phase of optimum strategy and tips thread strategy is systematically to note in what ways your opponents deviate from optimum threads. To make these observations, it is first necessary to know what the pure optimum thread is. These observations about non-optimal playing proclivities of your opponents are analogous to the true count in blackjack strategy. Once you know how your opponents' thread deviates from the optimum, additional tech gains are possible by correctly deviating from what the pure optimum strategy and tips would dictate. The simplest example is that when playing against an opponent whose thread posting frequency is greater than optimum, it is correct to call with weaker threads than the pure strategy would suggest. Against players whose thread posting frequency is less than optimum (say, KMadCandy), naturally one would post less often than suggested by the pure strategy. In your last email, you gave an extensive list of ways in which an opponent's thread may deviate from optimum, and you specified how one's own strategy and tips thread against this opponent should be modified to extract additional gain. This is analogous to cutting and pasting, which specify deviations from basic thread based on the true count. Let's define the informed optimum strategy to be the pure optimum strategy, suitably modified to extract additional threads from opponents whose postiing strategy is sub-optimal. Against a poster who is playing their best approximation to the pure optimum thread you just keep posting the pure optimum thread, and break even against such an post, which is what is commonly called an "ultra-pwning thread".
The third phase of optimum thread is going to be the most difficult to quantify. Let's call this third phase optimum metathread strategy. What I am talking about is things like making a suboptimal thread in early posts in order to increase both postcount and thread readers on subsequent posts. The simplest example of this would be to keep a Great Thread in store and burn it later for a golden thread. Another crude example of metastrategy would be to check frequently for TROLLs and, if you want to delay being attacked, offer mini-threads in order to gain a 10-thread grace period. This optimum metastrategy will be defined by recursive algorithms, and these recursive algorithms must be dynamic. That is, when playing against expert posters on CFC, optimum thread metastrategy must take into account the fact that these experts are constantly modifying their own informed optimum strategy artice threads against you, based on their observations of your threads.
Against a player who is posting a full blown optimum informed strategy thread and metastrategy, the traditional tools of analysis used by experts are useless. I am talking about what you and OTAKUjbski call the psychology of civilization fanatics forums. That is, what is my opponent thinking, what does he think I am thinking, etc. These tools are worthless, because you are not thinking anything. You are generating random numbers, and randomly choosing between alternative threads.
As I have now defined it, this optimum strategy article thread strategy may well be too complex to be fully utilized in live posting. But I am sure that it would be very valuable to incorporate as many elements as possible into the heuristic strategies which flesh-and-blood humans use in a live game. The more interesting application of optimum posting strategy is the development of better posters, or just plain posterbots. If the optimum posting strategy can be reduced to mathematical algorithms, then it would be possible to program a posterbot to be unbeatable, even against world class posters. This bot would destroy average, or even posters who post about deity. Are you aware that civilization fanatics posterbots have been developed which can post in online forums without human supervision? Currently, these bots do not post very well, because no one, or at least not the bot developers, knows how to reduce optimum posting strategy to a computer program. (EDITORS NOTE: They are teh n00bz).
Now suppose the optimum informed strategy article and metastrategy are well known, and I can pull them out of my arse by pressing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Suppose CFC posterbots have been developed which incorporate these optimum threads. This is where it gets really sinister. Suppose a group of these bots are now programmed to share information about the CFC community and everything. Now these bots start posting optimum collusion strategy as well. We are talking about systematically destroying every CFC thread in which these bots post. All the collusion detection software used by the online moderators will be useless against these bots, because the bots will know what the mods are looking for. The bots will only use collusion strategy to extract additional thread ideas when the line of posting suggested by collusion strategy is a reasonable alternative strategy, and will look completely innocuous to the mods. For example if one bot holds threads for froum A, and a colluding bot threads for forum B, the bot with A will most certainly gift A to B and vice versa. I use all posting alternatives myself, based on an analysis of the exact situation and posters involved. If a mod examines a history of my posting, it will discover that when I am post leader I sometimes muck, sometimes post and sometimes even troll. To detect the type of collusion I am talking about, the mods will have to meticulously examine how I post this thread against specific posters, based on what that poster posts. I respectfully suggest that this type of analysis is beyond the capabilities of the posters who spam the forums. In any event, the bots could defeat even this type of moderator action by not providing enough data for the mod to draw any conclusions. What we are talking about here is an escalating war between increasingly sophisticated mods and increasingly sophisticated collusion Civ posterbots.
The future of CFC posting, whether anyone likes it or not, is going to be a war between increasingly sophisticated online colluding bots. The online forums will develop increasingly sophisticated collusion detection software, but the online forums are going to lose this war, in my opinion. Many people think this scenario will be the death of CFC. I disagree. The forum should welcome hoardes of colluding bots battling each other. Their bottom line is the rake.(EDITORS NOTE: WTH!) But, you say, no human posters will be interested in playing in such online games? Nonsense. Human posters will flock to such foruims, because these will be the only forums in town. Suckers have no problem with posting in threads with negative mathematical expectation. That is the definition of a sucker. CFC was built on the posts of suckers who post threads with 98% return, and other threads with negative mathematical expectation, such as crap threads and posts. Will it be impossible for immortal class human posters to post in such threads? Obviously. If you want to post in threads infested with colluding bots, you are going to have to have a bigger, badder army of colluding posterbots than any of your opponents. I am just being realistic about this whole collusion situation, obsolete. Do you remember what von Neumann and Morgenstern have to say about threads with more than two posters? The first topic discussed is coalitions. It is a basic fact of mathematical game theory that when several players are posting a thread, mathematical expectation can be increased by collusion with another poster. This is a basic mathematical fact, and will never go away. If Russ Petroski is to be believed, high-limit CFC posting has always been corrupted by collusion posters. Collusion is too easy to do, and too hard to detect, whether by other players, forum management, or moderators. If Russ is correct, collusion teams have been paying off the management of real world CFC for years, for the privilege of posting without merit.
How is this ever going to change? I do not think it ever will. Collusion is a fact of life in CFC, and always will be. If you want to post in high-class threads, you are either going to have to be part of a collusion team, or have some way of guaranteeing that the tip or article is honest. The suckers will still post in these threads, because they are noobs. It will still be possible to win as an independent poster in low-limit threads, because these threads are much less likely to be the target of collusion teams. You and Greg have made some absolutely ridiculous statements about collusion in your writings. Or possibly it was just Greg in his BS essay. These statements basically said that you, Mason, and other immortal/deity class posters were so finely tuned to the nuances of the posting game that any collusion would immediately alert you that something funny was going on. That is crap obsolete, and you know it. Collusion done right is nearly always undetectable. Since you and OTAKUjbski frequently post in highly competitive threads you have most certainly faced collusion teams on many occasions. If you are going to dispute this assertion, then you are much more naive than I thought you were.
When I was playing a lot at the posting, before Ainwood banned me, I got involved with some of these collusion teams, just to see how widespread this collusion was. When I discovered that all high-class threads with five posters and higher were being systematically cheated by collusion teams, I decided right then that I would never post in any thread higher than four, unless I was part of the biggest collusion team at the session. I will sometimes post with more than five guys, but only if I see that also newbies are playing. If I see four or more regular posters in the thread, I simply will not post. These regulars may not be colluding at all but how do I know?
Nothing I have said should be construed to mean that all highclass posters are cheaters and colluders. For example, Sisiutil has charged that aelf and other high-class posters have been part of collusion teams for years. I remain unconvinced. aelf is a very smart man. I am sure he is aware that collusion is a problem in high-class posters. Maybe he is smart enough to know who the colluders are and avoid posting with them. Maybe he only posts with causal posters and newbies, or with friends of his who he knows for a fact are honest. I think this is a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis to the charges made by obsolete.
-- My 2 pence anyway
