- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:00 pm
I’ve always heard the term and thought that I understood it at a “basic level”, but I learning a bit more, I don’t truly understand it.
An example I found would be:
There’s a single M&M on the table between you and a friend/opponent.
You both decide that splitting the M&M in half isn’t an option... so, one of you will get to eat the M&M.
So one of you will be +M&M and the other -M&M resulting in a “zero sum”, which I SORT OF can understand, but my problem is, the one you who get the M&M, wouldn’t that be a “positive”?
Or is the game theory spectating from another perspective keeping “score”?
I just think that “zero sum” might be inaccurate because for the winner, how wouldn’t it be “+1”?
Some explain in practical application and examples that can be understood, please.
An example I found would be:
There’s a single M&M on the table between you and a friend/opponent.
You both decide that splitting the M&M in half isn’t an option... so, one of you will get to eat the M&M.
So one of you will be +M&M and the other -M&M resulting in a “zero sum”, which I SORT OF can understand, but my problem is, the one you who get the M&M, wouldn’t that be a “positive”?
Or is the game theory spectating from another perspective keeping “score”?
I just think that “zero sum” might be inaccurate because for the winner, how wouldn’t it be “+1”?
Some explain in practical application and examples that can be understood, please.
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 12:07 pm
6
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:01 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”?
Google will give you a much more comprehensive explanation than TD poliboard.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:01 pm to yankeeundercover
In what context?
Broadly speaking, a zero sum game is where one person’s gains exactly equal another person’s losses.
Broadly speaking, a zero sum game is where one person’s gains exactly equal another person’s losses.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:02 pm to yankeeundercover
you heard the saying "robbing peter to pay paul"?
basically that
basically that
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:02 pm to yankeeundercover
Theory?
A Zero-Sum Game is one where there is a set number of "things" for me to get more "things" someone has to have fewer "things"
A Zero-Sum Game is one where there is a set number of "things" for me to get more "things" someone has to have fewer "things"
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:02 pm to yankeeundercover
no such thing.
there's such a thing as a zero-sum game though.
there's such a thing as a zero-sum game though.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:06 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:That’s what I’m thinking/saying!
there's such a thing as a zero-sum game though.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:08 pm to yankeeundercover
A game, or problem, in which there is a finite amount of resources over which all players compete. Therefore, not everyone can win, and the amount by which the winners win corresponds exactly with the amount by which the losers lose - hence, “zero-sum.”
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:09 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:But from the “winner’s” perspective, there’s a “+1”, correct? Or am I missing something?
hence, “zero-sum.”
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:09 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
That’s what I’m thinking/saying!
What are you having trouble with? Even your example is simple:
Try it this way. At the beginning EACH own 1/2 of the M&M. They both decide 1/2 is not a big deal..so, they flip a coin and one "win"
Winner is +1/2 (He already OWNED 1/2) and loser is -1/2 = 0
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:10 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:So how could the person “getting more things” not call that a positive outcome?
A Zero-Sum Game is one where there is a set number of "things" for me to get more "things" someone has to have fewer "things"
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:12 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
But from the “winner’s” perspective, there’s a “+1”, correct? Or am I missing something?
Well, each perspective is independent. But, the WHOLE is in balance
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:13 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:I really appreciate the effort to explain it simply, but again, wouldn’t the guy who won the coin flip be +1/2?
Winner is +1/2 (He already OWNED 1/2) and loser is -1/2 = 0
Maybe I’m having trouble with the language...
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:13 pm to yankeeundercover
They would. Zero-sum games have winners and losers. The “theory” part comes in trying to find methods to play such games that either ensure that the player is a “winner,” or that ensure an equal outcome for everyone. Good luck with that last one, by the way.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:13 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
So how could the person “getting more things” not call that a positive outcome?
You are either being purposely obtuse or not even trying. LOCALLY, there may be a flood. That locality sees "extra" water. But, the water on earth has not changed. Just "moved"
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:14 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:
I really appreciate the effort to explain it simply, but again, wouldn’t the guy who won the coin flip be +1/2?
Maybe I’m having trouble with the language...
Player 1 sees +
Player 2 sees -
the GAME sees zero
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:15 pm to yankeeundercover
a non-zero sum game would differ in that there's some choice/combo of choices between the players available where one could be better off and the other at worst still be no worse off, or that both players could in fact be better off
zero sum would just mean that they can both/all stay as well off as before, or that one/some can gain, but only at the expense of the other(s)
zero sum would just mean that they can both/all stay as well off as before, or that one/some can gain, but only at the expense of the other(s)
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:16 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:So, whomever/whatever labels a “zero sum game” would be an arbitrary “observer” with no stake in the M&M?
But, the WHOLE is in balance
Just someone looking on and proclaiming that “there was one M&M, both ‘owned’ half and one guy won the coin flip, so in terms of the universe rules, there was no ‘net change’...”
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:16 pm to yankeeundercover
The one that doesn't get the M&M (subject One) will then hate the one (subject two) that gets it. Subject one pulls out a knife and stabs subject two. Subject two has a gun and uses it to shoot and kill subject one. Subject two goes to the hospital but dies. Zero Sum! The above scenario actually happened, but the object in question was the last piece of fried chicken.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 12:16 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
the GAME sees zero
good way to put it
the game considers/nets every player
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News