*plz help me* I hate it when people say RPS is all random

[Wayne]

I just learned about how RPS has strategy to it and now im trying to popularize the game in my school. Now everyone just assume rock paper scissor is all random, but I know it's not, the thing is that I have no idea how to convince them that rock paper scissor really does have strategy!!!

They would say you cannot predict whether if someone is going to do rock paper or scissor.

Then they would challenge me to RPS, for some reason, I jsut cannot really convince them by playing them!!

so my first question is, what should I say to be able to convince someone that RPS is not a random kindergarten game

and second, how come a complete clueless person who doesn't believe RPS has strategy could beat me, even when I try to apply any strategy I know

[custardchuk]

Wayne,
Say nothing. Actions speak louder than words.
Those that are deaf lose more often.
Those that are deaf can still see.......your ferrari. Then you become deaf.

regards
custardchuk

[Jef Hallestone]

Try telling them what throw you are going to play before you throw it. This always screws up these kinda guys because now they have to figure out if you are lying or telling the truth. In other words, you are forcing them to think strategically about the game. The trick here is to acually play the throw that you say you are gonna throw. That way if you lose then you simply can point out that they won becuase they let what you said you would throw affect their next move which proves they used a strategy and if you win then they look like an idiot becuase you told them what you would throw and they which proves that you beat them with strategy.

Obviously, you look like a hero if you win (cause there is nothing worse than losing when a guy tells you what you are gonna throw), but if you lose it is no big deal cause you told him what you woudl throw. Win/win in my books

[Darlo]

Try telling them what throw you are going to play before you throw it. This always screws up these kinda guys because now they have to figure out if you are lying or telling the truth. In other words, you are forcing them to think strategically about the game. The trick here is to acually play the throw that you say you are gonna throw. That way if you lose then you simply can point out that they won becuase they let what you said you would throw affect their next move which proves they used a strategy and if you win then they look like an idiot becuase you told them what you would throw and they which proves that you beat them with strategy.

Obviously, you look like a hero if you win (cause there is nothing worse than losing when a guy tells you what you are gonna throw), but if you lose it is no big deal cause you told him what you woudl throw. Win/win in my books

I love it when I beat people this way. Especially when some smart-allec thinks they can then win easilly (in which case I lie mwahahahaha  :lol: )

[Master Roshambollah]

Nice work, Jef.  Spoken like someone who has never actually played in a real competitive environment.

Wayne, Jef's "strategy" is little more than a safety net.  Far from a "win/win" situation, it sounds like more of a "not a loss/not a loss."

In my experience, if you tell the other player what you're going to throw, most of the time they will make the throw themselves.  It is a simple matter to tell the other player you're going to throw rock, then have paper ready for the counter.  This strategm is riskier than Jef's suggestion, but "nothing ventured, nothing gained," I say.  Potential risk equals potential reward.

Use of verbal cues only works on individuals who are predisposed to receiving information verbally.  Others are more receptive to visual information.  A little study of Neurolinguistic Programming goes a long way here.  One cue is to listen to what they say.  A person who says "I see what you're saying" is more open to visual suggestion.  An "I hear you" type prefers verbal information.  Some players (such as C. Urbanus) are non-reactive to a fault; these strategies are useless against such a player.  Also, custardchuk never lies.

As far as the randomness issue, human beings are incapable of truly random behavior.  Studies have tended to support this theory.  Check out this article for more information.

To answer your questions, then:

First Question  I have been asked this question a million times.  I usually respond by saying the above:  "Human beings are incapable of truly random behavior.  The main difference between computer generated random strings and pseudorandom human generated strings are that the computer strings tend to repeat the same integer more often.  That is to say, it would not be uncommon for a computer generated string to have five throws of rock in a row.  Human generated strings rarely do so, outside of professional competition."

Second Question  Typically the "completely clueless" person is trying to hustle you.  Before I became a world-famous RPS player I would use this strategy.  It doesn't work so well for me anymore.  When such a person beats you, saying "it's all random," you can respond by saying, "Sure, sure...it's all random.  I've heard that one before.  Excellent strategy."  Then, while they're confused, challenge them to another game and bet them a dollar on the outcome [NOTE:  This post is for information purposes only.  I am certainly not encouraging anyone to gamble, much less a minor.]  If they are truly using a random strategy, their win-loss ratio should be 50/50.  Even though there is no serial correlation in RPS (i.e., even though a pseudorandom player only wins half the time, the fact that he or she just won does not automatically mean the next match will be a loss,) you stand a good chance of winning, especially if you noticed any patterns in their previous string.  If you win this match, it will appear as if you have hustled them.  I am always happy to lose for free, if it sets me up for a later monetary win.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

[rhymeswithsausage]

In my very limited experience, I have found that I might flounder a bit in the first round.  But after seeing how my opponent plays, I can counter-act them.  Perhaps they favor Paper, or always open with Rock, or they throw in a pattern, etc.  Watch what they do against you and work the next round with that information.

I am a novice, by all respects.  But I feel that in order to succeed, you must first fail.  Learn from your losses and they will happen less frequently.

[Master Roshambollah]

In my very limited experience, I have found that I might flounder a bit in the first round.  But after seeing how my opponent plays, I can counter-act them.  

Some call this the "Urbanus Defense."  Perhaps you are not as much of a novice as you think.

[martinburley]

Perhaps you are not as much of a novice as you think.

That point reminds me of the four stages of learning, which apply to RPS as much as anything else:

1. Unconscious incompetence ("RPS? What's that? Isn't it all just random?")
2. Conscious incompetence ("Aww, I'm crap!")
3. Conscious competence ("Yey! I can do this!")
4. Unconscious competence ("No worries")

Often a player then cycles through these at higher skill levels (where typically stage 1 is now associated with "I'm the best!").

(The above steps cover the journey from beginner to expert. This we have also heard: that there are two final levels, slightly different:
 
∞. Unconscious mastery
∞ + 1. Conscious mastery )

[paperchamp]

In my very limited experience, I have found that I might flounder a bit in the first round.  But after seeing how my opponent plays, I can counter-act them.  

Some call this the "Urbanus Defense."  Perhaps you are not as much of a novice as you think.

I used this strategy in the 2005 championships and even though I was a novice I had no doubt  that my opponent would throw rock on his last throw.  While I don't believe that humans can truly be random another strategy is to really mix up your throws to try to appear random- forcing your opponent to counteract with a strategy b/c they don't know what you will throw and then pick up on the strategy to eventually win.  Keep in mind that in short matches you will probably lose.

[Wayne]

i STILL  find defeating someone who doesn't believe in strategic RPS harder than someone who does

Someone who actaully thinks is more predictable, I find it hard to predict a beginner's unconsious moves[/quote]

[martinburley]

Wayne, one technique you may like to try is to lure them out of their (attempted) random play. Particularly if you're playing a longer game (best of 5 of 5, or race to 10, for example), start with a very obvious strategy. Even perhaps Paper, Paper, Paper, Paper... at some point, your opponent will realise that they can do better by countering your strategy than by playing randomly. Once they slip into strategic thinking, you can use your preferred strategies and techniques to gain the advantage.

If they're a regular opponent, you may prefer to focus on picking up on the subtle non-random elements in their play. Recording both your and your opponent's throws is a vital step here. There are some good neural net applications for Excel that can help with the analysis. If you can uncover the patterns in their play, you can regularly defeat them. Since they themselves are unaware of those patterns, believing themselves to be playing randomly, it's highly unlikely they'll correct themselves. Spend a week learning how to milk a cow, and you can get fresh milk from it for years.

[Brad Fox]

Wayne, you also should check out the "meta-strategies" section of the "Advanced RPS Strategy" article written by Arbiter for WRPS.com

The whole point of meta-strategies are to induce your opponent into strategic play that they are not ready for. The most common is "crystal balling" where comments such as "I'm going to throw scissors" or "Go ahead, throw scissors" are used to shake your opponent out of pseudo-random play.

Also search the forum for the thread on the "Roshambolla Trap"... which is a very strong strategy to use against complete beginners.