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
| Pick | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| $1 | 16 | 44.4% |
| $3 | 20 | 55.6% |
| Total | 36 | 100.0% |
Since the percentage picking the higher amount is 50% or more, all of you get jack squat for this round. What do you have to say for yourselves?
I'm going to give you greedy group a chance to redeem yourselves. The round 4 choices will again be $1 and $3. Picks will be due 9 AM Vegas time on Wednesday, Aug 31.
Quote: WizardHere are the results of round 3:
Pick Count Percent $1 16 44.4% $3 20 55.6% Total 36 100.0%
Since the percentage picking the higher amount is 50% or more, all of you get jack squat for this round. What do you have to say for yourselves?
Doh!
Boo -hiss to those who didn't submit a bid.
Anyhow.... Onwards and upwards.
Bidding $1 last round didn't work, so this round I'm going to openly declare that my bid for round #4 shall be $3.
Quote: WizardHere are the results of round 3:
Pick Count Percent $1 16 44.4% $3 20 55.6% Total 36 100.0%
Since the percentage picking the higher amount is 50% or more, all of you get jack squat for this round. What do you have to say for yourselves?
I'm going to give you greedy group a chance to redeem yourselves. The round 4 choices will again be $1 and $3. Picks will be due 9 AM Vegas time on Wednesday, Aug 31.
I figured that this would be the result once the team fell apart. It is fine with me--I was greedy and I don't apologize for it. It isn't like there is a whole lot a stake in this game; I had $4 and could have had $5 or $7 had this been a "win" for us. I will keep my word to be part of a group strategy if one really exists with all of the wiggle room available (do I really have $4 or not?),
Group or no group, I am submitting my pick now for $1.
I have always advocated the best strategy was for everyone to pick the higher amount with P=1/3 (technically it's marginally slightly higher for $3 than $2).
In theory I should increase my chances of picking $3, but trying to remain on a friendly tack I shall continue to pick using my pack of cards method (Spades=$3, Red=$1, Clubs=redraw) and hope everyone else does something similar.
That results in a first come first serve system with certainty of success unless somebody is being a dick. Charlie, I like your system, it would be helpful if you'd still post your pick.
Well, it doesn't really work perfectly because of no-shows. So let's assume 7 no-shows for a total of 33 vaild picks and 16 $3 picks available.
My pick is $3.
$3 picks remaining: 14
Please put the updated line above in your post.
You are correct in that if everyone were to post their pick then we would win, but using your suggestion why wouldn't the early birds just pick $3.
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Count |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1 | $1 | $1 | 13 |
| $1 | $1 | $3 | 5 |
| $1 | $2 | $1 | 0 |
| $1 | $2 | $3 | 2 |
| $2 | $1 | $1 | 2 |
| $2 | $1 | $3 | 0 |
| $2 | $2 | $1 | 0 |
| $2 | $2 | $3 | 7 |
Quote: charliepatrick
You are correct in that if everyone were to post their pick then we would win, but using your suggestion why wouldn't the early birds just pick $3.
They would, and they should. Fair or no fair, if you are late for the party (missing the $3 picks) you still have a choice between getting a dollar and getting no dollar.
Clearly there are some people who are always picking high, the same logic applies, eventually some of them have to switch horses and start picking low otherwise they'll find the ones who always pick low will get fed up and also pick high.
So if someone was/ is fed up, however they didn't want to be accused of trying to be sneaky or whatever they could just refrain from bidding. Perhaps there was/is some private collusion leaning towards this tactic to punish the non cooperating members.Quote: charliepatrickI disagree - it would degenerate into everyone picking $3. The correct strategy against consistent $3 players is to say if you continue to choose $3 then we will until you start choosing $1.
Clearly there are some people who are always picking high, the same logic applies, eventually some of them have to switch horses and start picking low otherwise they'll find the ones who always pick low will get fed up and also pick high.
$3 picks still available: 14
Come on now kids, you're better than that! Everyone just vote $1 and we INSTANTLY WIN. ZERO VARIANCE
My next will be the same as the other rounds, $1. I've voted $1 in all 4 rounds now.
Quote: Canyonero...$3 picks still available: 14
On the other hand, my method does call for varying bid amounts, so you cannot count on me to keep carrying and sacrificing for the rest. Just so ya know. Make of that what you will, those who are trying to track the openly announced bids.
Edit: I also notice that only 14 of the 20 people who bid $3 in round #3 have played all three rounds. That means that 6 Johnny-come-lately types contributed to the failure.
Thanks for the help. I'm bidding $3 as well.Quote: SOOPOOI will help the team by announcing I am selecting $3. This will help the team by making it clearer they should all select $1. My announcement of my $1 selection last round likely made some of the greedy team members feel safer going for $3. So I am being altruistic this round by announcing and selecting $3. PM to the Wiz sent.
Quote: onenickelmiracleRound 4 will be another failure. Oh well no Christmas this year.
I agree, I have voted $1 for the fourth time but the gig is over...too many people think $3 vs. $1 actually makes a difference in their life, whatever...If the illogical ones continue to be the majority in Round 4, I will respectfully withdraw from the game and give the next person on the waiting list a chance to join the game.
Quote: Doc... I also notice that only 14 of the 20 people who bid $3 in round #3 have played all three rounds. That means that 6 Johnny-come-lately types contributed to the failure.
Further analysis:
It appears that only 6 of the 40 players in round #3 had not played in both of the previous rounds: CharliePatrick, gordonm888, PlayYourCardsRight, RaleighCraps, TwoFeathersATL, and IndyJeffrey.
Yep, based on info provided by the Wizard, all six of those named above bid $3 in round #3.
And you folks thought that the Wizard was keeping individual bids confidential!
;-)
Perhaps we should go with a $3 first come first serve basis for the $3. Everyone who gets here first can just post up their $3 bids keeping an ongoing tally in plain view then whomever gets here late can see they must bid $1 or get nothing. They can gamble once it gets close to 16 and push it but that's on them.Quote: DocIn analyzing the Wizard's report of the bidding patterns for the first three rounds, I note that the average total of three bids is $4.79 -- definitely higher than my total. Does that put me in the "altruistic" minority? Not necessarily -- I've just been following my original "strategy" and did not contribute to the recent failure.
On the other hand, my method does call for varying bid amounts, so you cannot count on me to keep carrying and sacrificing for the rest. Just so ya know. Make of that what you will, those who are trying to track the openly announced bids.
Edit: I also notice that only 14 of the 20 people who bid $3 in round #3 have played all three rounds. That means that 6 Johnny-come-lately types contributed to the failure.
The figuresQuote: DocFurther analysis:
| Round | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Original 29 - Lo | 20 | 20 | 15 |
| Original 29 - Hi | 9 | 9 | 14 |
| Total - Lo | 24 | 16 | |
| Total - Hi | 10 | 20 | |
| JCL - Lo | 4 | 1 | |
| JCL - Hi | 1 | 6 |
So you can see that the "Johnny Come Lately"s mostly bid $1 in Round 2 and all but one switched in Round 3. But also five old timers switched as well.
Quote: Paradigm...If the illogical ones continue to be the majority in Round 4, I will respectfully withdraw from the game and give the next person on the waiting list a chance to join the game.
At this late stage, I think I'm going to close the game to new players. If anybody resigns he/she will not be replaced.
Quote: charliepatrickIn theory I should increase my chances of picking $3, but trying to remain on a friendly tack I shall continue to pick using my pack of cards method (Spades=$3, Red=$1, Clubs=redraw) and hope everyone else does something similar.
I like the idea of making your choice random. Did it once before and will this time in the most transparent way: Red Sox win and I'll go with $3, they lose and it will be $1
Buncha greedy gusses on here, losing that last round for all of us. Pbbbbtttt. Ifpeople.were on board with shared equity, it would be a lot easier to maximize earnings.
I said I was voting $1 , and that is exactly what I did.
I am voting $1 every time, since a guaranteed $1 is better than risking getting nuttin. I will take my chance when Romes tries to parlay my meager winnings into something tangible.
And I don't care how many others get $3, or $5, or whatever. This is like a corporate CEO game. CEOs don't care about how much money they get, they just want to be sure they are getting more than anyone else.
Quote: AxelWolfI would like to nominate mrsuit31 if he's willing and able to organize and coordinate everyone on board for the next round.
I submitted my usual $1. I'm going to take a step back a lil from trying to gather folks up. You have seen I have been trying for over a week.
My plans for the team had been expressed clearly multiple times. Many have hoped on board with that and many clearly have not and/or are trying to take advantage.
We need at a minimum of 25 people truely on board with the team "GuaranteEV" (Get it? It's a functional name...), for it to work properly.
Once we hit that mark we can increase our EV each round. Also, which had been hinted about in my previous posts, as Charlie has begun to start leaning towards in his recent posts, once we have that majority voting share we then can start bullying the indies into following the team rules or everyone will always lose. Of course with strategy applied to those tactics as well. If that works, eventually it would force the indies to join team GuaranteEV. If it fails, the indies never come around and we lose more than one round, you simply go back to maximizing EV with the current team members to a guaranteed win.
With the stats that WIZ has been releasing the organizer can pretty accurately keep track of team compliance. While we have been expressing our bids, once organized, we would not disclose our bids and the organizer would be the only one who knew the actual breakdown of dictated bids each round. Taking into account the non team members you could figure out a ballpark percentage of compliance amungst the team.
WIZ's new distribution rules make trust in pooling at the end an issue now. Therefore the later rounds may get a little hairy regarding who would be trusted with the high bids. While now it would be fine to have the bids spread out. Later on once the spread increases, the team should vote for whom they believe should be given the higher bid/s to place in reliance on that members trust level of the rest of the team to actually transfer the higher bid winnings to the trustee at the end to then dictate to wiz how to distribute etc...
Quote: RaleighCrapsSorry Doc, but your analysis has a bad assumption, or some other flaw.
Seems quite likely, and I think I have identified the flaw. I should explain how I came to my "conclusion" so that someone might be able to carry the analysis through better. I will point out below the flaw that I detected.
In this post, the Wizard listed the 40 players for round #1, although only 33 submitted their picks. Then for round #2, he dropped beerseason, MathExtremist, and TwoFeathersATL while adding (1) CharliePatrick, (2) gordonm888, and (3) PlayYourCardsRight, giving the round #2 lineup of 40 presented in this post, although only 34 submitted picks. Next for round #3, he eliminated jml24, paigowdan, and theoriemeister and added (4) RaleighCraps, (5) TwoFeathersATL, and (6) IndyJeffrey.
The six names numbered in that paragraph are the only players who were eligible to vote in round #3 and who were not eligible to vote in all three rounds.
In this post, the Wizard showed that there were sixteen $1 picks and twenty $3 picks in round #3. Then in this post he showed a table of voting patterns for the 29 people who had really submitted their picks in all three rounds. Examination of that table shows that there were only 14 of those 29 who submitted $3 picks, meaning that 20-14=6 of the $3 picks in round #3 must have come from folks who did not participate in all three rounds.
My error was in concluding that the six people who picked $3 without participating in all three rounds were the same six people who had not been eligible to pick in all three rounds. The error there was that some of the people who did not submit picks in rounds #1 and #2 were kept in the game -- they could have picked $3 in round #3 and still not appeared in the table of bid patterns. My mistake.
However, I did not follow how CharliePatrick came up with his conclusions (other than just assuming the results), particularly how there were 7 (rather than 6) Johnny-Come-Lately types (I used that term to describe folks who were late being included in the game) eligible in round #3 or how folks voted in round #2.
Quote: DocIn this post, the Wizard listed the 40 players for round #1, although only 33 submitted their picks. Then for round #2, he dropped beerseason, MathExtremist, and TwoFeathersATL while adding (1) CharliePatrick, (2) gordonm888, and (3) PlayYourCardsRight, giving the round #2 lineup of 40 presented in this post, although only 34 submitted picks. Next for round #3, he eliminated jml24, paigowdan, and theoriemeister and added (4) RaleighCraps, (5) TwoFeathersATL, and (6) IndyJeffrey.
The six names numbered in that paragraph are the only players who were eligible to vote in round #3 and who were not eligible to vote in all three rounds.
Since I have been outed, I will submit $1 for round 4.
Another thought about deception, the always $2 voter might be within the group using the camouflage of kumbaya.
Told Wiz I'd go $3 on round #3 and did so.
Then shared that with the group.
Had no doubt some mental giant could figure out how to shake some $ out of Wiz's piggy bank.
Well, time for a new plan.
I am willing to cooperate in a group of three.
In that group two will go low bet each round, one will go high bet.
We will take turns, and I volunteer to go low bet on round #4.
This leaves me looking for two to cooperate with. PM me if interested, I'll take the first two requests.
This group of three I would hope can cooperate with a larger group, but we will be able to deliver 2 low bids and one high bid for now (if we can each be trusted;-)
Quote: mrsuit31
We need at a minimum of 25 people truely on board with the team "GuaranteEV" (Get it? It's a functional name...), for it to work properly.
Once we hit that mark we can increase our EV each round. Also, which had been hinted about in my previous posts, as Charlie has begun to start leaning towards in his recent posts, once we have that majority voting share we then can start bullying the indies into following the team rules or everyone will always lose. Of course with strategy applied to those tactics as well. If that works, eventually it would force the indies to join team GuaranteEV. If it fails, the indies never come around and we lose more than one round, you simply go back to maximizing EV with the current team members to a guaranteed win.
If you have 25 people on the team, if the whole team picked $1 you would be guaranteed to win every time. The rest of the 40 non-team players, would be able to clean up, though, since they could all pick the $3 every time.
Looks to me like the team's greed is messing it up for the individuals. Since the team won't accept a $1 guarantee if it means that the non-team players will make more money than them in the process.
The team's "greed" (trying to maximize their profits rather than taking the $1 guarantee) caused the misstep. IMO.
I think the point of this experiment may have already been made, since I don't think you'll ever convince a team of 21 people to take $1 every time, while the rest of the people are making 3 times the money, or more. Greed or jealousy or whatever you would call it (what would you call that?) ... prevailed.
Team GuaranteEv, Gordon Gecko would be so disappointed if you can't beat the $1 guarantee ($3 so far). Beat the guarantee... Rah Rah Rah...
What does or did you telling the Wizard how much you would bid have to do with anything?Quote: TwoFeathersATL2F winnings = zero, bummer.
Told Wiz I'd go $3 on round #3 and did so.
Then shared that with the group.
Had no doubt some mental giant could figure out how to shake some $ out of Wiz's piggy bank.
Well, time for a new plan.
I am willing to cooperate in a group of three.
In that group two will go low bet each round, one will go high bet.
We will take turns, and I volunteer to go low bet on round #4.
This leaves me looking for two to cooperate with. PM me if interested, I'll take the first two requests.
This group of three I would hope can cooperate with a larger group, but we will be able to deliver 2 low bids and one high bid for now (if we can each be trusted;-)
So generous of you to volunteer a low bid vote on a round already perceived dead in the water in exchange for a high bid vote in another round presumed closer to peaceful equilibrium.Quote: TwoFeathersATL2F winnings = zero, bummer.
Told Wiz I'd go $3 on round #3 and did so.
Then shared that with the group.
Had no doubt some mental giant could figure out how to shake some $ out of Wiz's piggy bank.
Well, time for a new plan.
I am willing to cooperate in a group of three.
In that group two will go low bet each round, one will go high bet.
We will take turns, and I volunteer to go low bet on round #4.
This leaves me looking for two to cooperate with. PM me if interested, I'll take the first two requests.
This group of three I would hope can cooperate with a larger group, but we will be able to deliver 2 low bids and one high bid for now (if we can each be trusted;-)
Quote: JyBrd0403If you have 25 people on the team, if the whole team picked $1 you would be guaranteed to win every time. The rest of the 40 non-team players, would be able to clean up, though, since they could all pick the $3 every time.
Looks to me like the team's greed is messing it up for the individuals. Since the team won't accept a $1 guarantee if it means that the non-team players will make more money than them in the process.
The team's "greed" (trying to maximize their profits rather than taking the $1 guarantee) caused the misstep. IMO.
I think the point of this experiment may have already been made, since I don't think you'll ever convince a team of 21 people to take $1 every time, while the rest of the people are making 3 times the money, or more. Greed or jealousy or whatever you would call it (what would you call that?) ... prevailed.
Team GuaranteEv, Gordon Gecko would be so disappointed if you can't beat the $1 guarantee ($3 so far). Beat the guarantee... Rah Rah Rah...
I don't follow... We had 15 people on our team who agreed to bet $1 to try and get the dollar like you said. I believe there were 16 or so $1 bids last round. As far as I'm concerned all of them stuck to their word. We did our job to try and get everyone to win. Even those who bet $3 by taking advantage of us. the purpose of the team is to guaranty for everyone who plays and avoided a loss like the one that just happened. I don't understand how we are the greedy ones. Please explain.
Quote: mrsuit31I don't follow... We had 15 people on our team who agreed to bet $1 to try and get the dollar like you said. I believe there were 16 or so $1 bids last round. As far as I'm concerned all of them stuck to their word. We did our job to try and get everyone to win. Even those who bet $3 by taking advantage of us. the purpose of the team is to guaranty for everyone who plays and avoided a loss like the one that just happened. I don't understand how we are the greedy ones. Please explain.
Maybe, I'm confused, I haven't been following this thread that closely, I thought you had 25 people on the team.
If you have over 21 people on the team, then you've guaranteed a win every time, if everyone on the team bets $1. If the team gets greedy and tries for more then the $1 guarantee, then there can be a misstep.
The team controls whether you all win or lose (if it's 21 members or more). So, if you lose it's the team's fault, do to greed or jealousy or whatever you call that. The team is guaranteed $1 every time, but wants more.
How many people are on the team?
Don't quit. Especially if no new members can join. The rules keep changing to make a bust round more certain. Just that fact should keep you in because you're being pushed out. Stay in until the end. Rounds 5 and 6 will come closer to a paying round than 3 or 4.Quote: ParadigmI agree, I have voted $1 for the fourth time but the gig is over...too many people think $3 vs. $1 actually makes a difference in their life, whatever...If the illogical ones continue to be the majority in Round 4, I will respectfully withdraw from the game and give the next person on the waiting list a chance to join the game.
If the iteration/response theory holds, then we should see a return to kum-by-ya land in round 4, and everybody will get a buck.
That's me, Mr Generous.Quote: onenickelmiracleSo generous of you to volunteer a low bid vote on a round already perceived dead in the water in exchange for a high bid vote in another round presumed closer to peaceful equilibrium.
BTW I was thinking about it, and I would actually try to do what was mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Instead of trying to maximize profits by having team members switch between $1 bets and $3 bets, what I would try to do is form a Team $1. Get 21 people to make a commitment to picking $1, which guarantees everyone a payout.
Then, Team $1 can try to cut a deal with the 19 other people to split the profits. Once you have 21 you can start negotiating with the other 19 to get a deal cut.
My guess is most of the big winners would be willing to share, since Team $1 would be responsible for making them $$$. And, that way Team $1 would end up +EV as well. If only 10 of the $3 winners split 50% of the profits, that would be $1.60 for Team $1.
I think this might have a chance at working, just because everyone on Team $1 will be expecting the other 19 people to pick $3, so they won't try to bet $3 themselves. Actually, after a deal is cut, they'd be rooting for the other 19 people to pick $3,
That's me, Mr Generous.Quote: onenickelmiracleSo generous of you to volunteer a low bid vote on a round already perceived dead in the water in exchange for a high bid vote in another round presumed closer to peaceful equilibrium.
1) From a simple viewpoint: If we all bid $1 per round, we would have won $120 by now. In people trying to "maximize EV" we've now only won like $90? If everyone just bids $1 we'll make $40/round... What's the end game here? Are you really trying to get the Wiz to PayPal you your $6? If you need $6 that badly, I might suggest less forum time and more working time =).
2) From an AP standpoint: This is one of those rare opportunities where trading MaxEV for ZERO VARIANCE is the proper play, at least in my opinion. When the Wiz upped the values to $1 and $3 then perhaps we could have had some discussion, but I personally still don't think this is enough to care about "max EV" vs 0 Variance. When it gets up to $1 and $5, then you're talking a substantial jump in potential EV (from $40, to $116 for perfect betting). Clearly we already have a group of "rogue" players that must essentially be accounted for as a higher bid. We must ENSURE we have 21 $1 bets and then whatever happens, happens. This is the only way to guarantee zero variance and guarantee a win every single round.
We're on a site that promotes gambling as intelligently as you can. When you joined the game you knew you were joining a GROUP where the goal was to WIN money, together. At that point you signed up for the "team" regardless if you realized it or not. If you want to be "rogue" and feel cool, then you're just being a jerk =).
Quote: WizardAt this late stage, I think I'm going to close the game to new players. If anybody resigns he/she will not be replaced.
I'll take that into consideration
$3 picks still available: 12 - although many people don't seem to be announcing... Please announce everybody. It is +EV
This situation defeats the "first come first serve is unfair " argument. It's not like all the $3 picks are gone the minute Wiz starts a new round.
Quote: WizardHere are the results of round 3:
Pick Count Percent $1 16 44.4% $3 20 55.6% Total 36 100.0%
Since the percentage picking the higher amount is 50% or more, all of you get jack squat for this round. What do you have to say for yourselves?
I'm going to give you greedy group a chance to redeem yourselves. The round 4 choices will again be $1 and $3. Picks will be due 9 AM Vegas time on Wednesday, Aug 31.
Is it good news we were only three high to low switches away from all getting paid?
Say only 2 of the 19 will split profits 50/50 with team $1. The next round team $1 can all bet $3 and nobody will win a penny. I think the holdouts would get the point pretty quickly.
Yeah, 21 committed to picking $1, with the goal of splitting the profits equally between all 40, would be the best way to go IMHO>
Pay $1 to win $2 or
Pay $1 to win $4
the cartel may be stronger.
I bet there would be more $1 selections than $2 or $3 if, in the event the greater dollar amount had more total selections, each person that selected that dollar amount had to send the Wizard that amount, or it came out of their share. I bet everyone would group together and play perfectly, then.
For those worried about anyone welching when it comes time to divvy up, if everyone were working in collusion, that problem could (mostly) be solved by properly orchestrating a rotation of who gets to pick the greater amounts.
