There was a lot of Game Theory talk last month in the High Stakes thread on 2p2 and it got me thinking about Rock, Paper, Scissors. Its probably pretty obvious to most that the game theory optimal approach to RPS would be to throw 1/3 of each at random.
So while it would seem that it would be impossible to actually have an edge playing against someone even remotely intelligent, after watching enough episodes of
Wheel of Fortune, (note on the vid: if you are offended easily there is some colorful commentary at the end you may want to avoid), I have come to the conclusion that the average person is pretty terrible at anything even remotely strategy related. That clip isn't even strategy related either, its just someone being dumb, which happens a lot too.
Thinking about this naturally led me to start wondering what kind of edge at RPS a winning midstakes poker player would have against a person of average intelligence, given that poker players by nature are adept at strategy and picking up patterns in opponents' play.
So my first question would be, if you knew you were playing someone of average intelligence, do you think there is an optimal choice for your first throw?
And how big of an edge, if any, (i.e. what percentage do you think they would be expected to win in the long run) do you think a winning poker player would have over:
Best of 9?
Best of 99?
Best of 999?
If you assume that the winning percentage increases over the longer series, is there a cap to the winning percentage that couldn't be increased by increasing the series length, and if so, at what percentage?
I'm not exactly sure how I would answer the latter questions, but in my mind I think the clear choice throwing first is Paper. Discuss.