Ultimatum Game
Poll
 | 16 votes (43.24%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 8 votes (21.62%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 4 votes (10.81%) |
37 members have voted
Um, how is it helping society by punishing someone's selfish behavior?Quote: WizardFor the greater good of society.
That's wonderful but just so you know if you were to do that for real you would get fired.Quote: WizardThat is your right, but I would confront them. I'm not a big fan of the "turn the other cheek" policy.
Quote: HotBlondeAnd I always have thought that if I won the lottery or something similar I would probably not tell anyone. I'm assuming a lot of people would come to me with open hands wanting a hand out.
I don't think you could hide it, unless you didn't spend the money. I'd tell such people that you're not a bank.
Quote: HotBlondeI remember watching 20/20 once time and John Stossel did a segment where he criticized very wealthy people for not giving away more money to charities. He said that statistically people of lower incomes gave a greater PERCENTAGE of their incomes than did wealthy people. He was criticizing them face-to-face asking the wealthier people why they weren't giving a bigger percentage of their enormous income. I was very startled and bothered that John Stossel was doing this because I felt that it was completely none of his business at all to criticize people on how much they gave away. If they want to keep every penny of their money that would be their business and no one else's. How dare we as humans go and tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do with their money. That is none of our business, not in the least.
He is right that as income goes up, donations to charity go down, as measured by percentage. However, I agree he had no right to confront them about it. I think he personally has shown how wasteful some charities are. Given how Libertarian his politics are, I would almost expect him to have an Ayn Rand philosophy opposing giving to charity.
Quote: HotBlondeUm, how is it helping society by punishing someone's selfish behavior?
By discouraging them from doing the same thing again.
Quote:That's wonderful but just so you know if you were to do that for real you would get fired.
I think it would depend on the boss and how the confrontation was handled. I would ask them if anything was wrong with the service. If they had issues with it, fine, I would let it go. If it seemed they were just cheap I would explain proper tipping etiquette.
Yeah, win big and long-lost friends tend to come out of the woodwork. Can't blame you there.Quote: HotBlondeAnd I always have thought that if I won the lottery or something similar I would probably not tell anyone. I'm assuming a lot of people would come to me with open hands wanting a hand out.
Duh...Quote: HotBlondeUm, how is it helping society by punishing someone's selfish behavior?Quote: WizardFor the greater good of society.
To teach them to stop being selfish.
On kind of a side note, but since we were talking earlier about crime and punishment, I do have to say that some things that are deemed crimes are stupid. Marijuana, for example, and prostitution come to mind. And I read once in Playboy that a percentage of our United States deem it unlawful to perform oral sex, even if it's with your spouse. WTF? Talk about victimless crimes!
Why would it be our business to teach someone to stop being selfish. That is none of our business and we're saying that selfishness is bad. It's not always a bad thing.Quote: DJTeddyBearDuh...
To teach them to stop being selfish.
Quote: HotBlondeI do have to say that some things that are deemed crimes are stupid. Marijuana, for example, and prostitution come to mind. And I read once in Playboy that a percentage of our United States deem it unlawful to perform oral sex, even if it's with your spouse. WTF? Talk about victimless crimes!
We're in agreement 100% on this. Especially the last example.
Quote: WizardI don't think you could hide it, unless you didn't spend the money. I'd tell such people that you're not a bank.
Well... it's not necessarily that hard to hide. I used to have to explain purchases coming from poker winnings differently one time, and it worked pretty well. Now, when it's mainstream, I'd just chalk down any lottery spoils to poker wins, especially as my best chance at a "lottery" win is getting a BBJ anyway.
Unless you are changing your whole lifestyle, but people are naturally change-averse, and even lottery winnings aren't usually the scale to buy a servant-maintained mansion on a private island. Besides, even with a relatively minor lifestyle change, like moving from a rented studio to a suburban home, you'll greatly change your environment and the people you need to interact with.
Lawrence vs. Texas overturned those laws. Feel free to .. well .. whatever ..Quote: HotBlondeAnd I read once in Playboy that a percentage of our United States deem it unlawful to perform oral sex, even if it's with your spouse.
Quote: HotBlondeIt's like who comes up with these laws?
At the risk of changing the topic, religious extremists mostly. I'm fine with it if they choose to be miserable, but don't take the rest of us down with you.
Amen Wizard!Quote: WizardAt the risk of changing the topic, religious extremists mostly. I'm fine with it if they choose to be miserable, but don't take the rest of us down with you.
I never said that, lol. But I would actually read some of the stuff in there. Don't you?? ;)Quote: buzzpaffYou just bought playboy to read the articles ? REALLY !!
Quote: HotBlondeAmen Wizard!
I never said that, lol. But I would actually read some of the stuff in there. Don't you?? ;)
Thanks!
I'm proud to say I've been quoted in Playboy twice. Hopefully somebody noticed.
Quote: HotBlondeThat's pretty cool. And you bought those magazines with your quotes in them just to see your quotes, right??
Thanks. That is the version I give my wife.
When I suggested he wasn't being fair, he said he was just invoking his positional advantage. That is a fair point. In blackjack and baccarat tournaments, of which I have played plenty, position is extremely important, and you would be a fool to not factor it into your strategy, whether offensively as last to act, or defensively as first.
So I guess to me it would matter specifically how the experiment was framed. If it was expressed an exercise in game theory, I would offer about 1/3, and would not accept less than about 20%. However, if it was framed as more of a study in ethics I would offer 1/2, and not accept less than about 40%. The book says, "These new experiments typically took the form of a game, run by college professors and played by their students." Elsewhere it refers to the professors as being in economics, which to me would imply it was an experiment in game theory, which would justify to me being more selfish.
Quote: WizardHowever, when I asked a friend of mine, who is a cold and calculating professional gambler, what he would do as player A, he said he would offer only about 20%, or whatever he thought would maximize what he would get. Offer too little and you risk getting nothing.
Well, in terms of maximizing return here, the situation looks like this:
- Between 50% and 100%, the chances are the same (high), only a few players would reject.
- Under 50%, the chance of acceptance drops, first rapidly, then slower, with steps at psychological barriers.
The EV line will then look like a saw, going down, then up at psychological barriers, and finally rapidly down past 50%.
Apart from too low and over 50%, I think the worst zone lies between 40% and 50%. Going from 50% to 49% only gives you +2% in win, but a clear drop in odds, cutting off people who won't accept any less than 50% on principle. By 40%, you start to regain some win to compensate, but get the next drop in odds, and the next at 1/3. Past 1/3, the win increase is too small to overcome rapidly dropping odds.
So the only real choice is between the peak at 50% and the second peak somewhere between 30% and 40%. I don't think 20% is a good choice, it will certainly be the third or fourth peak, but it's only an extra 20% over the win at 1/3, and the loss in odds is certainly greater than that.
With larger amounts of money, however, principles will play less role and greed more, so other peaks can be considered as well. But there the utility nonlinearity will kick in, decreasing one's EU at lower share ratios and coming back to the same two peaks.
Quote: P90Well, in terms of maximizing return here, the situation looks like this:
- Between 50% and 100%, the chances are the same (high), only a few players would reject.
- Under 50%, the chance of acceptance drops, first rapidly, then slower, with steps at psychological barriers.
The EV line will then look like a saw, going down, then up at psychological barriers, and finally rapidly down past 50%.
Apart from too low and over 50%, I think the worst zone lies between 40% and 50%. Going from 50% to 49% only gives you +2% in win, but a clear drop in odds, cutting off people who won't accept any less than 50% on principle. By 40%, you start to regain some win to compensate, but get the next drop in odds, and the next at 1/3. Past 1/3, the win increase is too small to overcome rapidly dropping odds.
So the only real choice is between the peak at 50% and the second peak somewhere between 30% and 40%. I don't think 20% is a good choice, it will certainly be the third or fourth peak, but it's only an extra 20% over the win at 1/3, and the loss in odds is certainly greater than that.
With larger amounts of money, however, principles will play less role and greed more, so other peaks can be considered as well. But there the utility nonlinearity will kick in, decreasing one's EU at lower share ratios and coming back to the same two peaks.
Hmm, could Kelly be applied to this situation?
Quote: AyecarumbaHmm, could Kelly be applied to this situation?
I don't think so, not for a single round at least, it applies to bet sizing. This is a direct EU maximization question. But a proper answer is only possible with testing (or estimating) the distribution of people at each psychological point.
Quote: MoscaWell, just look at the responses for the answer. Everything else is just a theory, if you want to make sure you win, offer half and be happy.
What if you are a gambler, and your goal is to maximize expectations? If that were my goal, based on this group, I would offer about $15. This seems like a forgiving group. For the population at large I would offer more like $30.
Quote: WizardWhat if you are a gambler, and your goal is to maximize expectations? If that were my goal, based on this group, I would offer about $15. This seems like a forgiving group. For the population at large I would offer more like $30.
It looks like about half the time you'll get nothing. So you risk $50 to pick up $20. I dunno, I'd take the $50.
Quote: MoscaIt looks like about half the time you'll get nothing. So you risk $50 to pick up $20. I dunno, I'd take the $50.
How do you figure half the time I would get nothing?
Quote: WizardWhat if you are a gambler, and your goal is to maximize expectations? If that were my goal, based on this group, I would offer about $15. This seems like a forgiving group. For the population at large I would offer more like $30.
You're saying you would offer us, a group that is far more savvy about gambling matters and far more concerned with loss mitigation than the general population, a WORSE offer than the general public? Wow.
Quote: 7outlineawayYou're saying you would offer us, a group that is far more savvy about gambling matters and far more concerned with loss mitigation than the general population, a WORSE offer than the general public? Wow.
It is because of that. The group seems to take whatever they can get and does not put a priority on punishment for a small offer. Just look at Dorthy and HotBlonde, they would give me the full $100 if I offered nothing. Somebody else, I don't remember who, would accept just 1¢.
Quote: WizardHow do you figure half the time I would get nothing?
In the poll above, half the responders think $50 is the right number. So, half the time you hit it right, and the other half you didn't. When you don't hit it right, you get nothing.
And AMONG THIS GROUP, half said $50. A $30 offer would get you 6 of the 32 respondents.
Quote: P90The poll goes to what the people would offer, not to the minimum they would take. These aren't always the same number, there is a marginal area of "it's not what I would do, but it's not -that- bad".
Exactly! I'm thinking of doing another poll of what is the least you'd take.
Quote: WizardWhat if you are a gambler, and your goal is to maximize expectations? If that were my goal, based on this group, I would offer about $15. This seems like a forgiving group. For the population at large I would offer more like $30.
If you can negotiate, and I was player B, I'd put the shoe on the other foot :
Give me $60, or we both get nothing.
Quote: thecesspitIf you can negotiate, and I was player B, I'd put the shoe on the other foot :
Give me $60, or we both get nothing.
Which is how we wind up at 50-50 as the right number.
Quote: thecesspitIf you can negotiate, and I was player B, I'd put the shoe on the other foot :
Give me $60, or we both get nothing.
I'd call your bluff and offer $40.
Quote: WizardI'd call your bluff and offer $40.
Damn, you caught me.
Today, anyways, as I've just had to pay for my car to be repaired...
I was confused why you said this since I always thought in either of these games that position had absolutely nothing to do with the result of each hand. But maybe cuz you mentioned it in the context of a tournament that that actually changes things. But I'm confused as to how.Quote: WizardIn blackjack and baccarat tournaments, of which I have played plenty, position is extremely important, and you would be a fool to not factor it into your strategy, whether offensively as last to act, or defensively as first.
After giving my answers the other day it made me think that it would be easier for me to do what it was that I said I would do as player A (I think I said I would keep $95 and give away $5) if it was something I didn't have to do face-to-face. Number one cuz it would be easier for me to be more selfish that way and not have to have someone give me an evil look so as to make me feel bad, and number two cuz if they then decided that we would just both get $0 it would be easier to take the $0 outcome. So I think there is more to consider in the situation than just the rules listed.Quote: WizardSo I guess to me it would matter specifically how the experiment was framed.
This topic reminds me of the Social Psychology class I took in college.
Good idea.Quote: WizardExactly! I'm thinking of doing another poll of what is the least you'd take.
Funny, cuz when I read that thecesspit wrote that, my immediate response was that he would be bluffing. Offering $40 is smart in that situation, cuz would he really pass up $40 and take nothing? I mean, it's 40 bucks!!Quote: thecesspitIf you can negotiate, and I was player B, I'd put the shoe on the other foot :
Give me $60, or we both get nothing.Quote: WizardI'd call your bluff and offer $40.
Good for you my dear, great minds think alike! :)Quote: Jufo81As player B I would tell player A that I am not going to accept anything less than $50. But it's a bluff and I would actually take anything he offers. If he was stingy enough to offer something like $1 I would still take it because I would respect that he took a huge risk of possibly getting nothing and I might want to reward him for making such a bold move.
Quote: HotBlondeFunny, cuz when I read that thecesspit wrote that, my immediate response was that he would be bluffing. Offering $40 is smart in that situation, cuz would he really pass up $40 and take nothing? I mean, it's 40 bucks!!
I'm just not stubborn enough. But I play a lot of board games, and I know several people who would walk away from a deal like this, based on how they play certain negotiation games (that take this to a different level, and are repeated, which makes things slightly different).
But on other days, I could walk away from $40, just so I could keep my word of only accepting $60.
If it was $400/$600, slightly different. $4000/$6000, I'm taking what you give me :) Utility of each extra dollar, I suppose. I was just seeing if there was a good way to switch the power in the relationship.
Quote: HotBlondeI was confused why you said this since I always thought in either of these games that position had absolutely nothing to do with the result of each hand. But maybe cuz you mentioned it in the context of a tournament that that actually changes things. But I'm confused as to how.
Since the goal in tournaments is to have a longer stack than the other players, by acting last in final rounds you can tailor your bet and playing style just right to either get a shot at catching up or get just a bit ahead of the opponents. In baccarat you can bet with or against the other players. For instance, if you have $100 and the previous player $98, he bets $8 on player, by betting $9 on player you ensure that whatever way the hand plays out, you remain ahead. In blackjack, you will also adjust risk-averse and risk-seeking behavior, such as doubles, splits and surrenders, deviating from basic strategy in favor of catching up or staying ahead.
Gotcha. Now it makes sense.Quote: P90Since the goal in tournaments is to have a longer stack than the other players, by acting last in later rounds you can tailor your bet and playing style just right to either get a shot at catching up or get just a bit ahead of the opponents. In baccarat you can bet with or against the other players. For instance, if you have $100 and he $98, he bets $8 on player, by betting $9 on player you ensure that whatever way the hand plays out, you remain ahead. In blackjack, you will also adjust risk-averse and risk-seeking behavior, such as doubles, splits and surrenders, deviating from basic strategy in favor of catching up or staying ahead.
