Game Shows And Game Theory
There's a British game show called Golden Balls in which two contestants play a game similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma. The prize of the pot varies by week but each contestant can choose whether to split the pot or steal the pot. They're given two balls, one says steal, one says split. If both choose to "split," they split. If both choose to "steal," they get nothing. And if one chooses "steal," he wins the whole pot and the other player, who chose "split," gets nothing.
What makes this different from a classic Prisoner's Dilemma is that prior to making their pick, they get a few minutes to talk to each other and make claims about what they're going to do.
First, let's see this in action:
Now, I have another video I want to show you featuring another episode of this show. But before I do that, I am very curious to find out what your strategy would be if you played this game.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
I "knew" the gal would win that face off. I believe, with very little empirical evidence, that men naturally want to please women, and also want to be seen as a provider. Check and check for the poor guy in this video. Honesty only gets you so far in life.
She played him perfectly. Never promise to split, but go ahead and play the victim before he can even victimize her. Nice.
I had the exact thought that misthiocracy had---declare intent to steal and a willingness to split. That's the only way to go.
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Misthiocracy
As soon as one person chooses that strategy, they pretty much have to cancel the television show. · 41 minutes ago
Edited 40 minutes ago
For you guys:
Apr '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Interesting, and the execution of his strategy ensures in can only happen a handful of times. Essentially, his deception means that future contestants can't be certain whether the person across from them is telling the truth or not. In this case, the deception was benevolent. In later cases ...
Well let's just say it'd look more like this.
Jan '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I believe they each play against each other repeatedly on their way to the final round -- so they get a feel for how trustworthy the other is.
Well, I don't know about the drama of the show, but the key to the strategy is whether the players know when the end game will be.
Knowing when the last game occurs is crucial, no matter how many games intervene. That knowledge creates a lock-in effect. Here's why ... If you know that the next game is the final game, then you'd treat it just like a one-shot game ... and you'd "defect" (non-cooperate). Your opponent, of course, would also know it, so he'd defect also.
But if the final game's result is guaranteed, then the next-to-last game would also be obvious, and the next-to-next-to-last game, and in turn, the next-to-next-to-next-to-last game, and so on.
Conclusion: cooperation in a PD depends on uncertainty.
Aug '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
More observations from the video.
While the host is explaining the rules, the woman is watching the man, but the man watches the host or closes his eyes.
Someone who is acting strategically (or deceptively), will usually maintain eye contact because they want to gauge your reactions.
Someone who is acting cooperatively (or honestly) is less likely to maintain eye contact. Making eye contact is confrontational, and by definition the cooperative person wants to avoid conflict.
He says that the people in the audience (an immediate group) would lynch him (a specific consequence) if he steals.
She says that "people who know me" (a generalized, unseen group) would be "disgusted" (a subjective, ephemeral consequence).
Liars tend to avoid naming names ("I did not have sex with that woman") or talking in specific terms.
Jan '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Remember, the point of game theory is that it is entirely non-emotional. It isn't how to win strategy games ... game theory is the logic of strategy. Game theory tells you what you should do, given that your opponent is rational, and given what you know about your opponent. That's why game theory is restricted to what the opponent's preferences are.
In a classic PD, you only have four possible outcomes.
If (if!!!) you and your opponent both prefer (in relative perspective) 4, 2, 3, 1 ... and both of you are rational, then logic says you will both defect.
Game theory is about what you can rationally expect, given preferences and limited outcomes.
Aug '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
I don't think gender is nearly enough to go on to make that kind of prediction. While a skilled woman, thinking strategically, may be able to use her femininity to an advantage, the strategic thinking skills have to come first. In a contest between a male salesman and an unskilled woman, her femininity wouldn't offer the same advantage.
Also, his mistake wasn't honesty, per se. His mistake was volunteering too much information while getting none in return.
That wasn't me. That was ~Paules.
Sep '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
I looked at her face and right away I knew she was going to steal.
Perhaps it comes from meeting lots and lots of students....
Apr '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
After watching a few of these and discussions, I'd do the following:
Go fairly conventional up until the jackpot. There's no need to give away all my good cards at the beginning. Now, assuming I get there ...
After a short discussion with my competitor, most likely discussing the mutual advantage of the Split, and my intention, I would then accuse my competitor of planning to pick Steal, and pick out a few mannerism as "proof of guilt." Put him on the defensive.
Then, I'll pick Split. Either my competitor will do as I've predicted because he's immune to guilt trips, or he'll pick Split because who wants to be proven as dastardly as accused in front of a live studio audience? It's one thing to be revealed as such, another to be proven so.
Either way, someone will go home with money because, hey, it's a game show and even if my gambit doesn't pay off, I'd still more or less be breaking even. Also, I'd get to be on TV, which I'm sure would be awesome.
May '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
I assumed there was a history of play because he was on the defensive from the beginning (apparently based on his prior play.)
I would push for a split strategy, make the other person swear up and down, do the same and hope for the best. The stakes are not high enough for me to be a douche on national television.
If we were splitting a million dollars I might think twice about trying to play the other person -- but probably not -- I'm just not that good a bluffer.
Aug '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
According to Wikipedia, it appears the show's final season was in 2009.
Feb '12
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Misthiocracy
Also, his mistake wasn't honesty,per se. His mistake wasvolunteeringtoo much information while getting none in return.
. · 1 hour ago
Isn't that the classic, bungling guy, trying to please the gal kind of episode? Perhaps not every woman wins against every guy. But any woman could win against that yahoo.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 11:35pmAug '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
C. U. Douglas: After a short discussion with my competitor, most likely discussing the mutual advantage of the Split, and my intention, I would then accuse my competitor of planning to pick Steal, and pick out a few mannerism as "proof of guilt." Put him on the defensive.
Then, I'll pick Split.
Here's my problem with that strategy.
After berating your opponent and accusing them of intending to steal, you've given them no reason to believe you have an incentive to split.
By expressing contempt for them, you're pretty much admitting that you would be willing to steal just to keep them from winning, out of spite, so what incentive do they have to pick split?
Playing the guilt card in that way wouldn't work, because the competitor wouldn't feel guilty about stealing from someone who is acting like a jerk.
If you want to make them feel guilty, you have to convince them that they would be HURTING you personally if they were to steal, rather than it being a zero-to-zero tie.
Apr '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Misthiocracy
Here's my problem with that strategy.
After berating your opponent and accusing them of intending to steal, you've given them no reason to believe you have an incentive to split.
By expressing contempt for them, you're pretty much admitting that you would be willing to steal just to keep them from winning, out of spite, so what incentive do they have to pick split?
Playing the guilt card in that way wouldn't work, because the competitor wouldn't feel guilty about stealing from someone who is acting like a jerk.
If you want to make them feel guilty, you have to convince them that they would be HURTING you personally if they were to steal, rather than it being a zero-to-zero tie. · 8 minutes ago
I'll stick with what I got. The trick is being a jerk while making them prove they are not. I claim inspiration from Democrat political negotiation tactics. Except they'd pick "Steal." Hey, it's worked for them ...
Aug '10
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Shane McGuire
Isn't that the classic, bungling guy, trying to please the gal kind of episode? Perhaps not every woman wins against every guy. But any woman could win against that yahoo.
A few implications of that argument, none of which I buy.
Now, it is possible that if Steven was competing against a man, Steven may have been less likely to volunteer so much information. Steven may have worked harder to size the competitor up. Maybe.
However, if Steven chose from the start to pick split, the opponent's gender is irrelevant.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:08amApr '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
I agree with Misthiocracy, in spite of the quip in my first post.
Again, I put it to Steven revealing all he laid all his cards on the table before knowing for certain his competitor would do the same.
Basically, he made concessions without guaranteeing equivalent concessions from the one he was negotiating with. We call this, "Democrat Foreign Policy."
Jan '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Of course, the whole point of Prisoner's Dilemma is that in a one-shot game, it doesn't matter what your opponent does. You're always better off defecting. If your opponent defects, then you're better off defecting yourself. On the other hand, if your opponent cooperates, you're also better off defecting. Either way, defecting is better. The interesting thing is that since both players have the same logic working on them ... we know how it'll turn out. They'll both defect. If they're rational ....
Apr '11
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Golden Balls is the best gameshow name ever.
Apr '12
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Apparently, at this point Paules is at advantage. However, in order to eliminate his or her disadvantage, the opponent could say the same thing back. Then...Paules is facing the same predicament. The problem comes back to the origin.
Apr '12
Re: Game Shows And Game Theory
Since it's really hard to simply persuade others to play a strictly dominated strategy, I would put an enforcement to change the payoff. In the conversation, I would make these four points.
1. I would choose split.
2. If opponent has a religion or family, make him or her swear. e.x., Swear on mother's life. Then his breach will disturb his conscience.
3. Make a serious threat. e.x. If you dare to choose "steal," I swear I would......(a serious consequence.) The extra 50 grand would endanger his or her life.
4. Restate that I am gonna choose "split."