Game Theory
After watching the moving Beautiful Mind, I began researching John Nash’s Nobel prize winning thesis on game theory. It will be very difficult to condense all of his brilliance into a concise email. My goal is to give you a few good points to think about out of the volumes of information I have reviewed.
Nash believed that the human mind could accomplish anything with mathematical ideas. We are going to focus on his strategy from his perspective. Nash describes cooperative games to mean a situation involving a set of players, pure strategies, and payoffs. He visualized a transaction as the outcome of either a process of negotiation or else independent strategizing by individuals each pursuing his or her own interest. Instead of defining a solution directly, he suggested developing a strategy that ask what reasonable condition would need to be satisfied, given the any division of gains. He then posited four conditions and, using an ingenious mathematical argument, showed that, if the axioms (needs of the parties) held, then unique solution existed that maximized the product of the participants’ utilities. Essentially, he reasoned, how gains are divided reflects how much the transaction is worth to each party and what other alternatives each have. This gives him the highest possibility of successes by mathematically analyzing the likelihood of the individual result. Therefore, predicting the future outcome of any negotiations.
Clearly, golf is a game. Does the Game Theory apply? The answer is . . . YES. If we visualize the outcome of any round based on historical situations, then the result will be similar to the last 100 rounds we played. The only way you change the equilibrium of your golf game is to change the strategy. This could be taking a course management lesson or changing your swing at GolfTEC. It possibly, might be as simple as changing the environment and taking a vacation in Scotland.
“If you’re going to develop exceptional ideas, it requires a type of thinking that is not simply practical thinking.” John Nash
Recent Comments