• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Guy uses logic and game theory to break gameshow game.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thunderchild
  • Start date Start date
T

Thunderchild

Guest
Saw this on reddit. Basically this game is like the prisoner's dilemma. Except on the show the "prisoners" can talk to each other which broke the game.

 
I remember there was a guy on Price is Right who guessed the actual retail price of his showcase EXACTLY. They thought he cheated but turns out he studied past showings and noticed a pattern in the way they priced things and capitalized on it.

It made Price is Right change up some things to prevent that from happening again.
 
Would be way better if they were playing to fuck the other player's wife and not cash.
 
Incredibly risky but a very smart play. If he was playing against a massively stubborn asshole that strategy would have backfired on him big time.
 
J. Bernie Cunningham said:
I'm confused. In what way was that a dilemma and how did game theory come into play?
Click to expand...

If they both choose steal, no one gets anything.
If they both choose split, they split the money.
If one chooses split and the other steal, then the stealer keeps the money.

The dominant strategy would be for them each individually to choose steal. A persons choice could be broken down as: Steal: Earn 100% or Earn 0% Split: Earn 50% or Earn 0%. So in game theory stealing would be in both peoples individual best interest. The big guy knew how game theory worked and removed "steal" as an effective strategy for the bald guy by convincing the bald guy that the big guy was choosing "steal" Therefore, if the bald guy chose steal he would get nothing guaranteed, but if the bald guy chooses "split" theres at least a chance that the big guy would share the money with him after show. The big guy intended to pick split all along but had to guarantee that the bald guy would pick split by convincing him that the big guy was picking steal.
 
BisexualMMA said:
If the other guy had been stubborn, game theory guy would have walked away with it all because he actually chose split at the end.
Click to expand...

If the bald guy had been stubborn and picked steal here, he would have had all the money. But the big guy convinced him that he himself was picking steal, therefore if the bald guy was choosing steal he was guaranteeing no money for either.
 
Thunderchild said:
If the bald guy had been stubborn and picked steal here, he would have had all the money. But the big guy convinced him that he himself was picking steal, therefore the bald guy was choosing that they both lose it all if he picked steal.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, I got my wires crossed and reversed the options in my head for a second there. Need another cup of coffee or two.
 
Thunderchild said:
If they both choose steal, no one gets anything.
If they both choose split, they split the money.
If one chooses split and the other steal, then the stealer keeps the money.

The dominant strategy would be for them each individually to choose steal. A persons choice could be broken down as: Steal: Earn 100% or Earn 0% Split: Earn 50% or Earn 0%. So in game theory stealing would be in both peoples individual best interest. The big guy knew how game theory worked and removed "steal" as an effective strategy for the bald guy by convincing the bald guy that the big guy was choosing "steal" Therefore, if the bald guy chose steal he would get nothing guaranteed, but if the bald guy chooses "split" theres at least a chance that the big guy would share the money with him after show. The big guy intended to pick split all along but had to guarantee that the bald guy would pick split by convincing him that the big guy was picking steal.
Click to expand...

But the communicating ruins the idea, even remotely gauge you're opponent and you would know which to pick. Having the other man essentially tell you his pick makes it pointless.

And clearly the ultimate goal would be to choose steal while your opponent chooses split. Neither man accomplished that. I'm not seeing the brilliance in two guys deciding 6k is better than 0.
 
"I'm gonna use the money to re-spray my yacht." lol!
 
J. Bernie Cunningham said:
But the communicating ruins the idea, even remotely gauge you're opponent and you would know which to pick. Having the other man essentially tell you his pick makes it pointless.

And clearly the ultimate goal would be to choose steal while your opponent chooses split. Neither man accomplished that. I'm not seeing the brilliance in two guys deciding 6k is better than 0.
Click to expand...

The communicating absolutely ruined it, that's the point. That's what the big guy exploited and they changed the game after this episode.

Follow your own logic, you just said that deciding that 6k is better than 0 is an obvious choice. If I am your counterpart in this game and I think you think it's obvious that we should chose split and that is what you are going to do, then why wouldn't I choose steal? The only way I wouldn't is if I were convinced you were choosing steal, in which case If i chose steal we both get nothing.
 
Thunderchild said:
The communicating absolutely ruined it, that's the point. That's what the big guy exploited and they changed the game after this episode.

Follow your own logic, you just said that deciding that 6k is better than 0 is an obvious choice. If I am your counterpart in this game and I think you think it's obvious that we should chose split and that is what you are going to do, then why wouldn't I choose steal? The only way I wouldn't is if I were convinced you were choosing steal, in which case If i chose steal we both get nothing.
Click to expand...

That exact question you've posed is why I don't understand what makes this man brilliant, or how game theory came into play.
 
I'd always go home with nothing or everything in these situations because I'd always steal as not wanting to go out played a fool - especially on national telly.
 
J. Bernie Cunningham said:
So what makes his move brilliant? He knew the man would pick split and still didn't pick steal. I'm not seeing some master-stroke of genius. I'm seeing a poorly conceived gameshow and a guy losing himself 6k.
Click to expand...

Right. All I'm seeing is he let himself off the hook post game as to whether to live up to giving the other bloke half like he promised or not. Because if he was trying to ensure one of the two would have got the whole lot at least - ie in case the guy picks Steal as well as a "screw you and your high pressuring techniques" the big guy picking split would have given the bald guy all the money. Now I think the big guy's plan was to make sure the show didn't keep the money. He would have tried to convince the bald guy to give him half (if bald guy voted to steal) by showing he voted "split" as a good faith gesture after convincing him to trust him when he could have voted steal.
 
J. Bernie Cunningham said:
So what makes his move brilliant? He knew the man would pick split and still didn't pick steal. I'm not seeing some master-stroke of genius. I'm seeing a poorly conceived gameshow and a guy losing himself 6k.
Click to expand...

Because if he picked steal he had a 50% chance of receiving nothing. His manipulation all but guaranteed himself $6k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,008
Messages
58,408,282
Members
176,031
Latest member
Golden Rhino

Share this page

Back
Top