<p>(using X for epsilon because keyboard)</p>

<p>This is just a hypothesis, but if you have a maximising agent and a minimising agent, then the optimal outcome for A (maximising) is to sweep the board (X,0), while the optimal outcome for B (minimising) is (-X,0) because B is minimising A's score, not their own. </p>

<p>A's optimal outcome is then complicated by the factor for sub-optimality, which we then imagine approaches zero.</p>

<p>There seem to be a bunch of assumptions that are not articulated, though, if this hypothesis is true.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T08:58:02.663Z
2017-01-23T08:58:02.663Z
Jnani Jenny Hale
<p>I am drawing this question from Berkeley's AI course (also not sure if it is the correct place to ask, so I apologize ahead of time)
<a href="https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs188/pacman/course_schedule.html" rel="noreferrer">https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs188/pacman/course_schedule.html</a></p>

<p>Currently, I am working on section 3's Homework.</p>

<p>My question is: the question (Part 1, question 6). Why is it that we can only guarantee that if the Min agent acts suboptimally, the best we can hope for is the following <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lLe7K.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lLe7K.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>It seems that we can put any arbitrary value for the second node e.g. whey does it have to be -Episolon. It could be any range of values, e.g. Epsilon, in which case we would have optimised the Player A</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T08:19:14.937Z
Try to summarize your research question;please!
quintumnia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T08:48:10.463Z
The question is very simple - why does A's outcome on the second branch have to be minus epsilon? Couldn't it be any random number?
Jnani Jenny Hale
<research>
Berkeley AI Course Question on Nearly Zero Sum Games
user2429446
# Berkeley AI Course Question on Nearly Zero Sum Games

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-22)

I am drawing this question from Berkeley's AI course (also not sure if it is the correct place to ask, so I apologize ahead of time)
<https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs188/pacman/course_schedule.html>

Currently, I am working on section 3's Homework.

My question is: the question (Part 1, question 6). Why is it that we can only guarantee that if the Min agent acts suboptimally, the best we can hope for is the following [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/lLe7K.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/lLe7K.png)

It seems that we can put any arbitrary value for the second node e.g. whey does it have to be -Episolon. It could be any range of values, e.g. Epsilon, in which case we would have optimised the Player A

**Tags:** research

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Try to summarize your research question;please!  
> **username_2**: The question is very simple - why does A's outcome on the second branch have to be minus epsilon? Couldn't it be any random number?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-01-23. Score: 3

(using X for epsilon because keyboard)

This is just a hypothesis, but if you have a maximising agent and a minimising agent, then the optimal outcome for A (maximising) is to sweep the board (X,0), while the optimal outcome for B (minimising) is (-X,0) because B is minimising A's score, not their own.

A's optimal outcome is then complicated by the factor for sub-optimality, which we then imagine approaches zero.

There seem to be a bunch of assumptions that are not articulated, though, if this hypothesis is true.


---

