Golden Balls - Page 4 - Laughs or Links

jglsd1 · 06-01-2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby snyder

From my limited studies in behavioral economics, I think the amount of money at stake is a huge factor. For example you're more likely to see spiteful play when there's less on the line (ultimatum game comes to mind), and more altruistic play when it's apparent that there could be two satisfied winners (chopping 500k is much more reasonable than going for 500/0 unless you're a real bastard imo).

This has nothing to do with optimal strategy btw, just what tends to come out in practice. So obviously you should steal in situations where people are going to be altruistic

I guess I'm a real bastard. It's why I play the same way at $.25/50 as I do at 3/6. +EV is +EV. You're also forgetting one thing, that this game is a freeroll.

bixby snyder · 06-01-2012, 07:55 PM

Well, the ultimatum game is a freeroll.

There's also a diminishing return on $ that isn't going to be a factor when considering $.25/$.50 vs 3/6. I think you'll find the vast majority of people would rather have 100% chance at $200k than 50% chance at $500 (not that this example is relevant to the game). But +EV isn't +EV when considering pure $ amounts, especially large ones. You know, risk aversion and stuff. Also how +EV moves in tournament chips aren't always +EV moves in tournaments because of ICM considerations.

lvalntin99 · 06-01-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

I came across a blog post on this show. I had watched about 5 of them before I saw the one in the op. The whole time I thought it was strange that no one ever thought to say they were going to steal. They always try to convince the other player that they should both split. They go on and on about how honest and trustworthy they are and all this bull****, and it appears to have absolutely no effect on anyone's decision. In the post-show interview, people often say they had made the decision to steal no matter what before the show even began. And I think the vast majority of the people who split also had no intention of ever stealing, their goal is to convince the other player to split.

Of course there's no way to know for sure, but this guy may have been the first one to actually influence the other player's decision.

This. I always thought the best strategy is to tell the guy you are stealing no matter what and either I get the money or some big corporation/insurance company gets to keep it. Either way you are going home with nothing.

EvilSteve · 06-01-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brocktoon

Do you have to look at the balls?

I'm starting to think the best play is to say to the other guy before they let you look, "If you look at the balls before picking I'm picking steal, but if you pick without looking I will too."

+1, or if they've already looked they have to look away while you randomize their balls so they don't know which is which (while allowing them to do the same with yours if they like). With the threat that you'll steal if they don't agree to this.

But if you're allowed to each draw from a common pool, take out one of the "steal" balls and you each draw randomly from the remaining three, guaranteeing you can avoid the dreaded steal/steal scenario. But that's almost certainly against the rules.

EvilSteve · 06-01-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee_monster

I think the rules would technically prohibit that (but I haven't watched many of these). Seems like the players are instructed to do certain things, including looking at the balls, and *then* talk about strategy.

However, I think the following will accomplish exactly the 'random' picking:

I propose that I choose your ball for you by pointing at the one I wish you to choose. You do the same for me. (OK, so we have a random selection of the balls) However, if you don't go along with my choice (which is observable), I will pick steal.

So if I choose steal for you, you have no reason to switch (ldo). If I choose split for you, you can keep it hoping for the 50% chance you choose split for me, or you can switch to steal, knowing that I will choose steal. And if you agree to my proposal and actually switch, I think it's certain that if you switched you originally had split and switched to steal, so it's rational (and credible) for me to switch to steal.

The problem with this is that we have a game of chicken regarding which player finalizes their selection first. Once one player selects, there's no reason for the other player not to steal. So to get a random selection it really is necessary that neither player knows which ball is which.

Though you can get around that by declaring that if they don't commit within 5 seconds (or some set amount of time), you'll steal. But then once they select you should just steal anyway so if they agree to select first, they're stupid. Mutually assured ignorance of which ball is which remains necessary.

coffee_monster · 06-01-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

The problem with this is that we have a game of chicken regarding which player finalizes their selection first. Once one player selects, there's no reason for the other player not to steal. So to get a random selection it really is necessary that neither player knows which ball is which.

Though you can get around that by declaring that if they don't commit within 5 seconds (or some set amount of time), you'll steal. But then once they select you should just steal anyway so if they agree to select first, they're stupid. Mutually assured ignorance of which ball is which remains necessary.

Eh, I'm assuming that you'll always have time to change if the other person changes. That is, both people point at one of the other person's balls. Then at any time, if they switch from the one to the other then I can always switch.

I'm sort of basing that off the video where (if I remember right) there was a bit of a delay between the contestants both selecting a ball and the balls being "locked in". So I could pick up the ball that the other person selected for me, and if they picked up the opposite ball I have the right to change my selection.

You're right though, if one person has to commit before the other then that strategy goes out the window. I just think the rules make that a non-issue since (I think) the commitment threshold is when the host says things are locked in, and I would think that the host wouldn't lock the picks in if people were obviously wanting to change.