Excerpted from “Q Chronicles Book 1” by Dave Haynes (Praying Medic):

Excerpt:

In the above post, Q mentioned “Game Theory.” When I began my research, I made a mental note of it, but didn’t immediately research the subject. Months later, I found myself wishing I had. If you don’t understand the principles of game theory, you’ll never understand the strategy behind the ways in which Q communicates to us—and his enemies.

Game theory is the science of strategy and decision-making. It attempts to determine the course of action people ought to take if they want to obtain the best possible outcomes in a variety of simulated game situations. The games that are studied in game theory are interdependent. That is to say, the outcome for a particular player depends on the choices (strategies) taken by all players. Different kinds of games result in different types of wins and losses. In a “zero-sum” game, one player’s gain always results in another player’s loss. Some games have the potential for either mutual gain (positive sum) or mutual harm (negative sum).

A game theory player, like a military general, must consider the choices made by others—both potential opponents and allies. Game theory looks at strategies and the interdependence of players. There are two different types of interdependence—sequential and simultaneous.

In a game of chess, each player moves in sequence, having full knowledge of their opponent’s previous moves. A player involved in a sequential-move game must learn to develop strategies based on what they glean from their opponent’s moves. A player accumulates information about their opponent’s strategy and uses it to form their own strategy, which determines their current best choice.

Simple sequential games like tic-tac-toe that end after a few moves can be solved completely for every possible combination of moves. Each player’s best strategy is determined by looking at every possible outcome. Games such as chess that involve millions of possible moves are too complex to solve for all possible outcomes. Players attempt to look a few moves ahead and predict how their opponent will respond to a certain move, a countermove, and so on. Sequential games require linear thinking.

In addition to sequential games, we must consider simultaneous ones. Simultaneous games require a logical circle of reasoning. In simultaneous decision making, players make decisions without knowing what the other players have chosen to do. Although players move at the same time in ignorance of the other’s actions, they are aware that other players are making moves at the same time, who are likewise unaware of their opponent’s moves. Players must reason: “I think that he thinks that I think…” Players must put themselves in the shoes of their opponent and attempt to calculate their best possible outcome by predicting what their opponent would do given their current situation. The Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash described the optimal outcome that results when players make the best possible choice based on what they believe others will do. Nash illustrated this principle in what has become known as the “prisoner’s dilemma.”

Imagine two accomplices to a murder—held in separate prison cells—each contemplating the same plea deal that was offered by the prosecuting attorney. If either suspect provides information about the crime, they will receive a more lenient sentence. The suspects are not able to communicate with each other. If both suspects cooperate with the prosecutor, they each face 10 years in jail. If one cooperates while the other refuses, the one who cooperates receives immunity, while the other faces a lifetime in jail. If both suspects refuse to give any information, they both face a minor charge, and only a year in jail.

Because each person must make their choice without knowing what the other has chosen, and because the other person’s choice affects their fate, the only way to eliminate the worst possible outcome (life in jail) is to confess to the murder. This is the best response one could make in anticipation of the other’s range of choices.

In some situations, a player’s best option is the same no matter what other players do. This is called a “dominant strategy.” Sometimes, a player may only have bad choices. This is called a “dominated strategy.”

If a player uses a rigid approach to decision making, it can be exploited by an opponent. It’s helpful to keep your opponent guessing by mixing up your moves. In professional football, a mix of running the ball and passing prevents opponents from developing a dominant strategy. Even better is to incorporate fake pass plays and fake running plays.

Taking it one step further, a player may use threats or promises to alter an opponent’s perception or expectations of their own strategy, causing the opponent to take actions that are favorable to them or deter them from taking action that would harm them. Threats and promises may cause an opponent to put themselves in a dominated strategy. For promises and threats to work, they must be perceived as credible. Misdirection, distraction, deception, and disinformation are important components of a successful game theory strategy.

An interesting situation arises when one player has access to information that others do not. When playing stud poker, when a player is dealt a royal flush, this hand can’t be beat. But the advantage must be leveraged carefully to maximize its impact. A preferred strategy is pretending (bluffing) to have a terrible hand. Bluffing encourages your opponents to wager more money on their hand, which maximizes your eventual winnings.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Bluffing does provide disinformation to an opponent. But if a player bluffs too frequently, their opponent may see the pattern and develop a strategy to take advantage of it. Therefore, bluffing, like every other strategy, must be mixed in with different strategies.

Why Is This Relevant?

Many people explore interesting theories without ever considering how the subject they’re investigating is relevant. Interesting, perhaps, but if it’s not relevant, what’s the point? Like everything else related to Q, we must answer the question: “Why is this relevant?”

Game decisions are different from decisions that we make in a neutral environment. If you need to change a flat tire on your car, certain decisions must be made. Do you leave the car on the shoulder of the road while you change the tire, or do you attempt to drive it to a parking lot? Do you change it yourself or ask for help? While these decisions may result in slightly different experiences, the decisions of an opponent are not factored in. Compare that to the decisions made by a military general who must develop a strategy to win control of, and occupy a city inhabited by enemy forces. The general may have an initial battle plan in mind, which might involve the use of artillery to weaken enemy forces inside the city, but as soon as the enemy responds to the initial assault, the battlefield changes. The strategy may need to be modified depending on casualties, logistics, weather, terrain, etc.

It is well-known that members of the intelligence community frequent the boards of 4chan, 8chan, and 8kun. Many of them oppose the agenda of President Trump and Q. These agents are opponents in an elaborate game theory environment. But their moves are not part of a parlor game.

Rather than a game theory scenario where neither side knows the moves being made by the other, Q and the President may have the upper hand. Do they have access to all emails, phone calls, text messages, and other communications made by bad actors? Might they be using bluffs, disinformation, and distractions to maneuver them into a no-win situation?

Retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under Barack Obama until he was fired in 2014 over disagreements he had with Obama’s policies. Military Intelligence (MI) was his specialty. As a former Director of the DIA, do you think he is among a handful of people who have personal knowledge of those who committed acts of murder, extortion, blackmail, and other forms of corruption?

Q confirmed that the graphic that had been put together displaying his previous posts was correct. It provided a roadmap of the big picture. The conflict in our country was never really about left versus right, liberal versus conservative. That narrative serves as a distraction to keep us at each other’s throats and to prevent us from seeing that it’s always been about good versus evil.

Not all of Q’s posts are intended for the anons and autists. Some messages are designed to reach others (the silent ones) who monitor the boards, members of the intelligence community (friends and enemies), as well as the global elites—for whom disinformation exists and is necessary. They must make their moves based on the information and disinformation he provides.

Hayes, Dave; Hayes, Dave. Calm before the Storm (Q Chronicles Book 1) (pp. 82-84). DHayes Media. Kindle Edition.