Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one.
blog.rossry.net · 3,154 words · saved by 1 readers
Six things that make poker suboptimal for teaching about decision making under uncertainty, especially relative to Jane Street's card game Figgie.
Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one. Editor's note: Somewhat after I posted this on my own blog, Max Chiswick cornered me at a conference and gave me a whole new perspective on this topic. I now believe that there is a way to use poker to sharpen epistemics that works dramatically better than anything I had been considering. I hope to write it up -- together with Max -- when I have time. Anyway, I'm still happy to keep this post around as a record of my first thoughts on the matter, and because it's better than nothing in the time before Max and I get around to
related reading
- Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one. — LessWronglesswrong.com
- When each proud fighter bragsblog.rossry.net
- Video Games are the Future of Education — Nabeel S. Qureshinabeelqu.co
- Going Beyond the Nash Equilibrium in Poker by Learning to Exploit Suboptimal Playarxiv.org
- How to Make Smart Decisions Without Getting Lucky - Farnam Streetfs.blog
- The End of Decisions - Maurice Russomauricerusso.substack.com
- Fake Journal Club: Teaching Critical Reading · Gwern.netgwern.net
- Pedagogy Recommendationsparentheticallyspeaking.org
- Ray Dalio on X: "Investment Principles: What Should You Do Under Existing Conditions? " / Xx.com
- Fake Journal Club: Teaching Critical Reading · Gwern.netgwern.net
- Updatelessness doesn't solve most problems — LessWronglesswrong.com
- How to be more agenticusefulfictions.substack.com