Monday, April 23, 2012
IN ROUND ONE, THE CONTESTANTS BUILD A FENCE TO HERD STRAYING CATTLE: If transaction costs are zero, why would it take so long for this now-viral footage from the UK's prisoner's dilemma-based game show Golden Balls to make it to the States, given that the show went off the air three years ago? Still, sign up Jeff Probst or Penn Jillette to host, and let's get this on a network by September.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Still, sign up Jeff Probst or Penn Jillette to host....
ReplyDeleteJudging from the clip, I'd go with the late Donald Pleasance.
Yes, the final round is very effective (and yes, someone had clearly done their homework), but the rest of the show seems ridiculously and needlessly complicated. Part of the brilliance of the best gameshows is that the rules can be explained in 30 seconds.
ReplyDeleteI watched the entire Paradise Hotel, the best reality game show of all time (and one whose final round was the Prisoner's Dilemma if translated incompetently for stupid people), and I still don't understand the rules. Don't think the players did either.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how this possibly shows anything about game theory. The whole thing makes no sense to me, especially since they ended up [spoiler?] splitting the money anyway. It just seems stupid and dickish to me. Any one want to convince me why that is not the case?
ReplyDeleteNick knew that the only way he could guarantee that he walked away with any money was to get Ibrahim to play split. If Nick promised to play split, Ibrahim could have played steal. The fact that Ibrahim believed Nick would play steal meant that the only way he could get any money was if he played split and trusted that Nick would split it with him. If Ibrahim believed Nick would play steal and he played steal, both would lose, and both knew that, so it made it less likely Ibrahim would play steal. So, Nick knew it was unlikely Ibrahim would play steal. But he couldn't chance it, so he played split in the end, which was consistent with his initial offer.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they could interact makes it not a pure prisoners' dilemma, but it does show how each person has to make a decision taking into account what the other person would decide.
Wait, how can one of those balls be both golden AND steel? (Oh, sorry, did you want a substantive comment? Oops.)
ReplyDeleteDid no one watch Friend of Foe?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_or_Foe%3F It was on in the US some years ago and had a basic prisoner's dilemma as the last round.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the whole clip, right up until the end. Nick voted the wrong way. Either way he voted, he would have ended up splitting the money; this way, he splits the money AND he's a liar. Had he voted "steal," and then written Ibrahim the check, Nick would have had the same amount of money and been a truth-teller.
ReplyDeleteI assume the rules preclude opening your ball early and walking away.
ReplyDeleteIf he'd played "steal," he would have come off looking like a complete ass (whether or not he ultimately wrote the check).
ReplyDeleteDiscussed at Volokh.com (about adding it to an exam for 1st year law students) and I like the comments pointing out that being able to discuss the options makes it less a prisoner's dllemma and more a game of chicken.
ReplyDeleteGuest be me
ReplyDeleteThis way he appears charitable and doesn't have to pay taxes on the full amount (assuming British tax laws work similarly).
ReplyDelete