Your model doesn’t incorporate the uncertainty of my game. Even if Player 2 knows that Player 1 didn’t play A, the fact that he could have impacts his estimate of whether Player 1 picked B or C.
I’m saying that Player 2′s reward is strictly controlled by whatever fraction of the time player 1 plays B or C, since if player 1 plays A player 2′s reward is guaranteed to be zero, and diminishes expected reward from X and Y in the same proportion.
If player 1 moves and when they pick either A,B or C player 2 is told “player 1 picked A, B or C” then player 2 can reduce it to only considering the possibility of B and C because even though A strictly dominates B, player 2′s reward is only non-zero in the case where B or C are played.
This analysis would change if A,X were 3,0.5 or even 3,0.01
We look at game theory in different ways. By my analysis it is irrelevant what Player 2 would get if A were played, it could be $1 trillion or -$1 trillion and it would have no impact on the game as I see it. But then I don’t use timeless decision theory, and you might be. This could be the source of our disagreement.
No, I’m just saying that since in your particular example Player 2 is indifferent when Player 1 chooses A, the fact that they don’t get a decision doesn’t matter. Nothing to do with TDT.
Your model doesn’t incorporate the uncertainty of my game. Even if Player 2 knows that Player 1 didn’t play A, the fact that he could have impacts his estimate of whether Player 1 picked B or C.
I’m saying that Player 2′s reward is strictly controlled by whatever fraction of the time player 1 plays B or C, since if player 1 plays A player 2′s reward is guaranteed to be zero, and diminishes expected reward from X and Y in the same proportion.
If player 1 moves and when they pick either A,B or C player 2 is told “player 1 picked A, B or C” then player 2 can reduce it to only considering the possibility of B and C because even though A strictly dominates B, player 2′s reward is only non-zero in the case where B or C are played.
This analysis would change if A,X were 3,0.5 or even 3,0.01
We look at game theory in different ways. By my analysis it is irrelevant what Player 2 would get if A were played, it could be $1 trillion or -$1 trillion and it would have no impact on the game as I see it. But then I don’t use timeless decision theory, and you might be. This could be the source of our disagreement.
No, I’m just saying that since in your particular example Player 2 is indifferent when Player 1 chooses A, the fact that they don’t get a decision doesn’t matter. Nothing to do with TDT.