The kill/trade game

[myrkul]

I propose a game.

It's called "The kill/trade game."

Any number of people can play it, but it works best in pairs. Here's how it works:

I pair you, in this thread, with another participant. You each PM me a simple message. One word, either Kill, or Trade, with the subject being the Round number. If both choose "Trade," both get 2 points. If one chooses Kill, and the other trade, the Killer gets 3, and the other person 0. If both choose Kill, then both get only one point.

A/B	Trade	Kill
Trade	(2,2)	(0,3)
Kill	(3,0)	(1,1)

I will post the PMs and the results here. If there are an odd number of participants, I will join in, playing using the determinative "Tit for Tat" strategy. In other words, I will play according to the NAP. We will play for a predetermined, but secret, number of rounds. This is to prevent the knowledge that it is the final round from altering the players' strategy. The objective of the game is to end the game with as many points as you can.

What do you say?


Edited for ease of play and provable fairness of results.

[Hfleer]

I propose a game.

It's called "The kill/trade game."

Any number of people can play it, but it works best in pairs. Here's how it works:

I pair you, in this thread, with another participant. You each PM me a simple message. One word, either Kill, or Trade, with the subject being the Round number. If both choose "Trade," both get 2 points. If one chooses Kill, and the other trade, the Killer gets 3, and the other person 0. If both choose Kill, then both get only one point.

A/B	Trade	Kill
Trade	(2,2)	(0,3)
Kill	(3,0)	(1,1)

I will post the PMs and the results here. If there are an odd number of participants, I will join in, playing using the determinative "Tit for Tat" strategy. In other words, I will play according to the NAP. We will play for a predetermined, but secret, number of rounds. This is to prevent the knowledge that it is the final round from altering the players' strategy.

What do you say?


Edited for ease of play and provable fairness of results.

Kinda sounds like Rock, Paper, Scissors.  Without the Scissors

[myrkul]

Kinda sounds like Rock, Paper, Scissors.  Without the Scissors

Sort of. Except if you both pick paper, everybody wins, and if you both pick rock, nobody wins.

So, you up for a game? If this first one goes well, I have a few variations I'd like to try.

[Mike Christ]

Sounds like, in the end, if both trade, they'll inevitably get more points than if they choose to kill; however, if the point of the game is to wind up with more points than the other guy, then killing has to eventually happen.  Once someone gets a lead, it's all downhill, as the other guy knows he has to attempt to kill or else he'll never go forward.  Once someone gets a lead, through killing, he can continue killing, knowing he'll always stay on top by doing so.

[myrkul]

Sounds like, in the end, if both trade, they'll inevitably get more points than if they choose to kill; however, if the point of the game is to wind up with more points than the other guy, then killing has to eventually happen.  Once someone gets a lead, it's all downhill, as the other guy knows he has to attempt to kill or else he'll never go forward.  Once someone gets a lead, through killing, he can continue killing, knowing he'll always stay on top by doing so.

Well, that's the point of this exercise, to find out what strategy works best.

The point of the game is simply to end the game with as many points as possible, not necessarily to get more points than your "opponent".

[Mike Christ]

Sounds like, in the end, if both trade, they'll inevitably get more points than if they choose to kill; however, if the point of the game is to wind up with more points than the other guy, then killing has to eventually happen.  Once someone gets a lead, it's all downhill, as the other guy knows he has to attempt to kill or else he'll never go forward.  Once someone gets a lead, through killing, he can continue killing, knowing he'll always stay on top by doing so.

Well, that's the point of this exercise, to find out what strategy works best.

The point of the game is simply to end the game with as many points as possible.

So violent competition leads to fewer total points earned, even if one has more than the other, while peaceful competition leads to more points overall; both prosper together, in this case, at an even rate.

It's a simple game, but it has a valuable lesson

[enmaku]

I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[myrkul]

I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Yep, you get a kewpie. This is a specific form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Like I said, if this first game goes well, I'd like to introduce a few variables to see what happens.

[Elwar]

I played this once in high school where they were trying to teach us some sort of lesson.

Instead of the kill/trade they just had us do rock paper scissors with our hands but just one finger or two to show our choice.

I understood where the teacher was going with this and understood that by choosing the one finger (trade in this case) each time that if my partner did the same then we would both end up with the highest combined total. My partner did not quite get it through and put out a two finger every once in a while getting more points. But there were a couple of other people who had higher scores than her. Her being hot may have played a role as well.

[myrkul]

I played this once in high school where they were trying to teach us some sort of lesson.

Instead of the kill/trade they just had us do rock paper scissors with our hands but just one finger or two to show our choice.

I understood where the teacher was going with this and understood that by choosing the one finger (trade in this case) each time that if my partner did the same then we would both end up with the highest combined total. My partner did not quite get it through and put out a two finger every once in a while getting more points. But there were a couple of other people who had higher scores than her. Her being hot may have played a role as well.

Hot and devious. a dangerous combination.

So, you want to play, or you just commenting? If everyone who's commented so far is playing, we've got plenty enough for a game. Though I'd like to get at least kokjo or blablahblah in here. More variety in personality.

[Elwar]

So, you want to play, or you just commenting? If everyone who's commented so far is playing, we've got plenty enough for a game. Though I'd like to get at least kokjo or blablahblah in here. More variety in personality.

Sure, I will play. I wonder how this would go as a bitcoin gambling game.

[Cameltoemcgee]

Interesting... count me in.

[Rassah]

I'll play

[Foxpup]

I'm in.

[myrkul]

OK, that's enough for a start. Others can join in later rounds, if they like.

Round one:
Elwar <--> Foxpup
Rassah <--> Cameltoemcgee

[kokjo]

i will say a few things to this game:
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).

For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.

[Mike Christ]

i will say a few things to this game:
a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).
b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.
c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).

For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.

4 points are generated when people play fair.  3 points are generated when someone doesn't.  2 points are generated when neither does.

The mind of the autistic...  Fascinating.

But for the record, as we know who we're playing with beforehand, I would always, always, always, choose kill, for you and anyone else I already know would choose kill, just to make sure you couldn't get a lead.  In the end, we're all sitting on fewer points than we could've had, and nobody would get a lead.  Thanks, kokjo.

[hawkeye]

But for the record, as we know who we're playing with beforehand, I would always, always, always, choose kill, for you and anyone else I already know would choose kill, just to make sure you couldn't get a lead.  In the end, we're all sitting on fewer points than we could've had, and nobody would get a lead.  Thanks, kokjo.

Me also.  But then in the context of the game I might just choose kill for the hell of it a few times to see where it leads since there are no real world ramifications and no real world reward.  Maybe that's the point though?

[Foxpup]

a) the world is not discrete(the world have no rounds, and does no have fixed cost-benefit coefficients).

Sure it does. Ask any actuary.

b) the world can not be put in to a game with only 2 choices per player per round.

Yes. Games are, at best, a simplified abstraction of the world. That's why I'm such an average marksman despite playing first-person shooters my whole life.

c) tit-for-tat will win, if every player only controls one "move", and players are not allowed to communicate between rounds(players are not allowed to cooperate outside the game).

For instance, just to prove a point, i could team up with bla and some other statist, making them go on a suicide mission against AnCaps, but when they meet another from the team then always-trade.
That would minimize your scores and maximize ours.

Unless they do exactly the same thing. It's a perfectly symmetrical game, after all.

[myrkul]

I still don't have all the PMs for Round one, so if anyone wants to get in before round 2, now is the time.