Do you actually think this comment is intelligent or otherwise improves the discussion others are having about this topic? For one, I am pretty much completely lost in terms of what this article is saying, and inane commentary does not help in the process of understanding.
The gist of the article is that a long held strategy has been found inferior. This has been hailed as a revolution by some (the author and no doubt some of the community he's writing about) while the longer view, which can be seen in the post's comments is that it's expected:
"This just seems to be an extension of the folk theorem to the family of probabilistic strategies. 1. Any level payoff level can be supported in equilbrium (Press & Dyson), 2. None of those equilbria survive evolutionary refinements (this paper). Interesting stuff, but not quite revolutionary as it is suggested. "
The reference I was making was a famous line from the Simpsons where Bart's strategy of "good old rock, nothing beats that" is adapted to by Lisa who picks paper. Yeah I misquoted, season 4 was a long time ago :)
No it probably wasn't the most intelligent or informed comment I could have made. Sometimes the not most intelligent comments can be useful. Maybe this one wasn't one of those but, /shrug I would probably make it again.
