Cooperation game
Poll
 | 17 votes (34%) | ||
| | 12 votes (24%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2%) | ||
| | 5 votes (10%) | ||
| | 5 votes (10%) | ||
| | 6 votes (12%) | ||
| | 3 votes (6%) | ||
| | 7 votes (14%) | ||
| | 3 votes (6%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2%) |
50 members have voted
I have confirmed 4 people are in on changing their bid to high and that's been without much effort. So hopefully we can all work something out when the time comes and people are willing to bend and not make up their minds so fast.Quote: RomesWell then. It would appear we have a choice to make.
IF the last round is a "high spread" and no one wants to participate. I say we make a "We are bidding high" team. You see, we would get 19 people, and GUARANTEE that we are all bidding high (openly). Then, it's up to you guys. Take a guaranteed loss, or bid low and split the winnings with us.
Looks like you're gonna have to become a fan of 0 variance if you want to win anything after all...
Quote: RomesWell then. It would appear we have a choice to make.
IF the last round is a "high spread" and no one wants to participate. I say we make a "We are bidding high" team. You see, we would get 19 people, and GUARANTEE that we are all bidding high (openly). Then, it's up to you guys. Take a guaranteed loss, or bid low and split the winnings with us.
Looks like you're gonna have to become a fan of 0 variance if you want to win anything after all...
It's in Mike's interest to make the bid spread wide. Quite an enigma for him since we have run rings around him so far.
I doubt it's a good idea to prestate what our bids or strategy are for that round. If the spread is really high, then that will be a round worthy of winning. But the 'team' cannot get everyone on board: we've seen that. But the 'team' can have enough influence to totally beat Mike AND get some high bids in at the same time. That is possibly worth more than the satisfaction of trying to squash just 4 weasels or non-team players.
From the looks of that without our misstep round we'd be a bit over 90%.Quote: OnceDear...I'm still checking the above so E & OE
No it's not.Quote: OnceDearThat is possibly worth more than the satisfaction of trying to squash just 4 weasels or non-team players.
You made your rats nest now.....(-;
Quote: RomesWell then. It would appear we have a choice to make.
IF the last round is a "high spread" and no one wants to participate. I say we make a "We are bidding high" team. You see, we would get 19 people, and GUARANTEE that we are all bidding high (openly). Then, it's up to you guys. Take a guaranteed loss, or bid low and split the winnings with us.
Looks like you're gonna have to become a fan of 0 variance if you want to win anything after all...
I like this guy =)
Quote: AxelWolf
So if you plan on bidding high then plan on getting absolutely nothing. On the big round that is.
OK. I'll take that chance.
For an overall win of 74.7% of the maximum possible and for that to be 91.5% of the maximum for everything but the one round which ended in failure, I suspect that the non-"team" members have been doing a pretty good job of cooperation, even without signing up for the team.
Hear Hear. Even playing 'off the team' most players were sensible and seemed to have been FAR FAR less greedy than certain members assumed.Quote: DocFor an overall win of 74.7% of the maximum possible and for that to be 91.5% of the maximum for everything but the one round which ended in failure, I suspect that the non-"team" members have been doing a pretty good job of cooperation, even without signing up for the team.
Or I could follow Axel's, I almost trust that guy.
But all that talk is about round #8.
Maybe we should concentrate our efforts on round #7 first.
So far I'm ahead like $1.
Browsing private island purchases in the Bahamas as I type ( let's win round #7 ;-)
Quote: WizardDon't you get a sense of schadenfreude when you punish those greedy people who think only of themselves? When an ape in a pack of apes steps out of line, he gets ostracized by the rest. Same is true of lots of animals that form small societies. It could be argued you are doing a disservice to society by enabling those who consistently go high.
And this would all be very applicable if the players were allowed to vote one person out of the game after each round!
The Survivor Cooperation Game
I suspect THAT little change would increase the lying 20 fold......................
Quote: OnceDearIf we chuck in assorted bids, as we have been doing so successfully, then the value to us is more than $1. If the bid range is wide ( say $200 ), then the average value to us could be much more than $1. That's what we jeopardize, just to teach just 4 weasels a lesson which won't actually cost them anything more than a bit of lost opportunity.
That isn't so much what I'm talking about. Society always has to accept that there will be some freeloaders. However, it doesn't mean they have to take only from you? I think if I were playing this game I would accept less than the average of the low and high amounts. But I wouldn't sacrifice with a low bid every single time. I'd want at least some of the large amounts. Not even half, just some so that it doesn't feel like I'm a total enabler.
Quote: WizardBut don't you think I'm right? This game has 12 people who have gone low every time. I would compare this to people who give able-bodied panhandlers money. You're just enabling them. It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
As I said before, in a society sometimes you have to teach those who take more than their share a lesson.
Isn't this "Cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It would be one thing if I still got my $1, while they got hosed. But if we both end up with $0, what did that teach them?
Quote: RaleighCrapsIsn't this "Cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It would be one thing if I still got my $1, while they got hosed. But if we both end up with $0, what did that teach them?
Perhaps that people do care when a few folks load up on the choice crab legs at the buffet and only leave the junky pieces with the body parts attached. Perhaps that they care enough to slap a wrist every now and then for the greater good.
I think this is why, in the absence of the death penalty, crime goes up.
I figure the faster we get to more than half the people bidding high for the last round, the earlier real negotiations can begin.
Quote: WizardI don't think that is an apt comparison. Here is a better one. Let's say a panhandler works eight hours and makes $200 from begging. It would be worth $1 to me for that $200 to catch on fire so that he might instead get a job can contribute something to society.
But would you take $100 out of your wallet to put with the panhandler's $200 in order for the whole $300 to go up in smoke? That is the correct ratio, not you getting hurt for a $1 to watch the panhandler get hurt for $200.
I think there is zero chance that the Round 8 high bid is worth more than $20...this game is already not working out quite the way it was expected and I doubt Wiz would give us a chance to win (19*$20) + (20*$1) = $400 collectively...particularly with the increase in team coordination. But hey, I have been wrong before ;-).
The spread would need to be $1 to $20 for me to be mildly interested in voting high...and were that the case, I would look to Romes and/or Once Dear to coordinate an effort for close to Max Group EV.
Quote: ParadigmBut would you take $100 out of your wallet to put with the panhandler's $200 in order for the whole $300 to go up in smoke? That is the correct ratio, not you getting hurt for a $1 to watch the panhandler get hurt for $200.
No. But one of the benefits going high is there will likely be room for high picks anyway. In that case, free money for me. Only in the case where my high pick causes the percentage to tip over 50% would I be paying a price to teach a lesson. So, small chance picking high will cause me to win less and even if it does I at least get some satisfaction in teaching a lesson to the greedy players.
Quote: RaleighCrapsIsn't this "Cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It would be one thing if I still got my $1, while they got hosed. But if we both end up with $0, what did that teach them?
Don't we all pay tax money for jails to do that? I'm happy to pay my share for the jails to exact justice on those who prey on society.
Regarding your second point, what would you do on the show Friend or Foe where you would normally be happy to pick Friend, but you were 99% sure the other guy would pick Foe. Wouldn't picking Foe teach him a lesson?
The problem with that is things can come up and this is going to be the last thing on one's mind if something comes up and they won't want to hassle with reading and negotiating.Quote: Dalex64I will bid low this round, and high the next round.
I figure the faster we get to more than half the people bidding high for the last round, the earlier real negotiations can begin.
Quote: WizardNo. But one of the benefits going high is there will likely be room for high picks anyway. In that case, free money for me. Only in the case where my high pick causes the percentage to tip over 50% would I be paying a price to teach a lesson. So, small chance picking high will cause me to win less and even if it does I at least get some satisfaction in teaching a lesson to the greedy players.
In your quote "small chance of picking high will cause me to win less" equates to you being the "greedy player" you seek to punish. Just pick $1 and be happy ;-).
But all of this discussion is a bit irrelevant until we are faced with a decision over more than $1 - $4. Unfortunately the size of the prize has a direct correlation on the activation of normal human greed.
OD??? He's been lining is pocket from the start.Quote: ParadigmBut would you take $100 out of your wallet to put with the panhandler's $200 in order for the whole $300 to go up in smoke? That is the correct ratio, not you getting hurt for a $1 to watch the panhandler get hurt for $200.
I think there is zero chance that the Round 8 high bid is worth more than $20...this game is already not working out quite the way it was expected and I doubt Wiz would give us a chance to win (19*$20) + (20*$1) = $400 collectively...particularly with the increase in team coordination. But hey, I have been wrong before ;-).
The spread would need to be $1 to $20 for me to be mildly interested in voting high...and were that the case, I would look to Romes and/or Once Dear to coordinate an effort for close to Max Group EV.
Quote: ParadigmBut all of this discussion is a bit irrelevant until we are faced with a decision over more than $1 - $4. Unfortunately the size of the prize has a direct correlation on the activation of normal human greed.
Maybe I'm not explaining my position very well. I'm just arguing for fairness. If there are 15 slices of pie and 10 people, I'm not asking for 2 slices or even 1.5. I just want something between 1 and 1.5.
Quote: WizardMaybe I'm not explaining my position very well. I'm just arguing for fairness. If there are 15 slices of pie and 10 people, I'm not asking for 2 slices or even 1.5. I just want something between 1 and 1.5.
,,,remember to give Cousin Pookie his piece of the pie!!
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou cannot punish a high bid voter.
Sure you can. If enough low pick players stand up for themselves, then the high pickers will get nothing.
Quote: WizardSure you can. If enough low pick players stand up for themselves, then the high pickers will get nothing.
...a position that you likely tend to favor since it would cost you less money...
"Stand up for yourselves! Let me keep the money!"
Quote: AxelWolfOD??? He's been lining is pocket from the start.
Lol, you are a wag, Foxey.
Lining my pockets? Well, the below is an honest list of bids so far.
1,1,1,3,4,1,2 Average bid = $1.43 Thus lining my pockets with $10 so far. Punish me for that?
My bids were modest enough for my conscience. I did at least $10 of work trying to help us all along the way.
I think this is equivalent to saying, "there is only some small chance that I will be 'teaching a lesson' to anyone, and if it turns out that way, it's because I am acting exactly like the people I think should be punished, and I will be punished along with them."Quote: WizardOnly in the case where my high pick causes the percentage to tip over 50% would I be paying a price to teach a lesson. So, small chance picking high will cause me to win less and even if it does I at least get some satisfaction in teaching a lesson to the greedy players.
Some lesson. I'm not so sure it really is all that different from burning all your cash instead of giving some of it to the panhandler.
Quote: DocI think this is equivalent to saying, "there is only some small chance that I will be 'teaching a lesson' to anyone, and if it turns out that way, it's because I am acting exactly like the people I think should be punished, and I will be punished along with them."
There are different reasons for going high. One is greed. Another is to punish greed.
I'm in for any kind of team play in round 8, and sharing/pooling on a parlay after that.
Quote: onenickelmiracleAfter repeated no win rounds, the solution is keep on punishing even if it doesn't work. You assume they'll learn and I assume they won't. They're on top of the hill and will stay there.
I'm afraid you're probably right about that. However, I am willing to pay for a sense of Schadenfreude sometimes.
Quote: WizardBut don't you think I'm right? This game has 12 people who have gone low every time. I would compare this to people who give able-bodied panhandlers money. You're just enabling them. It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
As I said before, in a society sometimes you have to teach those who take more than their share a lesson.
Actually, that's a horrible comparison. The always-low bidders are analogous to those who always obey the law, or who always pay their taxes, in spite of the fact that doing so "enables" some people to game the system and take unfair advantage.
Going high just to spite other high bidders is like blowing up the subway because someone jumped the turnstiles.
Evenbob rubbed off on you, no pun intended.Quote: WizardI'm afraid you're probably right about that. However, I am willing to pay for a sense of Schadenfreude sometimes.
Quote: WizardMaybe I'm not explaining my position very well. I'm just arguing for fairness. If there are 15 slices of pie and 10 people, I'm not asking for 2 slices or even 1.5. I just want something between 1 and 1.5.
I suppose it comes down to just how exercised you get if someone gets more pie, or dollars, or sex with supermodels, than you. I am neither affected nor bothered by the fact that someone else is getting more than they "should," which is defined by most people as "more than I'm getting." I DON'T CARE.
Societally, the only way to eliminate freeloaders entirely is to make the process so draconian that it is essentially impossible to defect. For instance, we should make it impossible to get food stamps unless you spend three solid hours on a high-speed treadmill without falling off. Wouldn't have anybody trying to get more than their fair share that way!
I agree.Quote: Wizard...I'm just arguing for fairness. If there are 15 slices of pie and 10 people, I'm not asking for 2 slices or even 1.5. I just want something between 1 and 1.5.
I thought (please forgive me if I'm wrong) the initial team's idea was to have enough Lo bids to guarantee success. For me that seemed unfair on those in the team as they have to take a lower EV and lets others milk the high bid. I admire the noble people who have kept picking $1.
I thought it better for the "Team" to have said 2/3rds of us are picking Lo and 1/3rd picking Hi and assigning it to members in rotation or randomly: essentially that was what I was doing as it was [near enough] the mathematically correct solution.
The recent problem seems to be people are grabbing the Hi slots. I hope the team would say we are grabbing a few of those Hi slots (essentially #members/3).
Warning to those who keeping grabbing the first N/2-1 slots, I shall continue to make my selection randomly with P=1/3.
Quote: charliepatrickWarning to those who keeping grabbing the first N/2-1 slots, I shall continue to make my selection randomly with P=1/3.
What? Even if Mike makes a bid spread 1c - $10 or introduces some subtle twist such as $1 or the sum of what I owe you so far? where weasels have a disproportionate incentive.
After all, it's Mike's game, Mike's rules.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikActually, that's a horrible comparison. The always-low bidders are analogous to those who always obey the law, or who always pay their taxes, in spite of the fact that doing so "enables" some people to game the system and take unfair advantage.
I don't agree. Like how the money is spent or not, we're required to pay our taxes.
Quote: onenickelmiracleEvenbob rubbed off on you, no pun intended.
I guess 20,000 posts will do that.
IndyJeffrey, Dalex64 and Canonero appended
| Round #7 | Round #6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
E&OE. I Hope it helps.
Technically the probability of picking high should be increased if the high value exceeds $2, but I'll stick to P(Hi)=1/3 and use my trusty deck of cards.Quote: OnceDearWhat? Even if Mike makes a bid spread 1c - $10....
Quote: charliepatrick
I thought it better for the "Team" to have said 2/3rds of us are picking Lo and 1/3rd picking Hi and assigning it to members in rotation or randomly: essentially that was what I was doing as it was [near enough] the mathematically correct solution..
That was the original plan, at least mine. We had gotten 15 people on board with that, but never reached the threshold number to start increasing the team win without risking the loss to greatly.
Also, how do you feel if I post a history of individual picks while not indicating any player names? I'll shuffle the player list and identify every history as just an anonymous player number. The purpose of this game was a study in human behavior and I think it would help answer questions about it if we could see the complete voting trends.
A possible downside is somebody may have claimed a certain voting history that doesn't match any actual one, which would make that person look to not be telling the truth. So just one single objection from an active player and I won't do it.
Quote: WizardAlso, how do you feel if I post a history of individual picks ...
I have no objection, even if my name is listed. I have planned that, if there seems to be any interest, I will post my (variable) pick pattern along with the details of what I have described as my "personal strategy." I'm just waiting until the game is over. As I have said before, I think that a bit of uncertainty adds to the entertainment value of this game.
Let the head games begin..................
I currently object because it can affect future bids. Once the game is over, I'd have no objection, even if you used my name.Quote: Wizardhow do you feel if I post a history of individual picks while not indicating any player names?
Quote: WizardofnothingI object
Would you still object after round 8? The objection before is duly noted and will be respected.
p.s. Still waiting on 8 more picks for round 7.
Quote: WizardAlso, how do you feel if I post a history of individual picks while not indicating any player names? I'll shuffle the player list and identify every history as just an anonymous player number. The purpose of this game was a study in human behavior and I think it would help answer questions about it if we could see the complete voting trends.
A possible downside is somebody may have claimed a certain voting history that doesn't match any actual one, which would make that person look to not be telling the truth. So just one single objection from an active player and I won't do it.
I think you needed to make clear that you meant after the game is over and you need to decide if an individual's objection is to his result being in the list, or is it an objection to the whole concept of the reveal.
By not being specific, you have your one objection, which may be to late to assuage.
I have no objections to whatever you choose to reveal.
