Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!mxp9040
From: mxp9040@ritcv.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Win/Win Players vs. Win/Lose Players
Message-ID: <9496@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 19:57:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.9496
Posted: Tue Mar 25 19:57:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 04:49:19 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <439@ccivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mxp9040@ritcv.UUCP
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.singles:11294 net.women:9908

In article <12588@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>
>What do you mean by "best strategy"?  "tit for tat" is best against ALL
>the competition.  In other words, it can be beaten, but only barely.  The
>other known strategies, including the "prober", will lose spectactularly
>against certain other strategies, and so on average, do worse than "tit for
>tat".

yes, "tit for tat" would be best if one was considering 'on average', but what
if one was just interested in winning percentage?  The point I make is that
there is not necessarily just one way to test for the "best strategy."

By the way, what does this have to do with net.singles and net.women?