View in: Desktop
Copyright @2024 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.
- 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
Posted by
Message
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by yankeeundercover on 3/19/20 at 12:19 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Maybe I’m having trouble with the language...quote:
Player 1 sees +
Player 2 sees -
the GAME sees zero
So the “game” is the third-party onlooker, so to speak... but Player 1 wouldn’t call it a “zero sum game”, and if he did, he just came out on the winning side?
eta: Player 1 might “admit” that it was a “zero sum game”, but he wouldn’t really care, right?
This post was edited on 3/19 at 12:21 pm
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by funnystuff on 3/19/20 at 12:26 pm to yankeeundercover
The game is the entire collective environment.
Player 1 would presumably recognize that they are just one component of the game; not the entire game itself. So player one in your example could be very happy that the game exists, but still acknowledge that the game was what we classify as “zero-sum”.
Player 1 would presumably recognize that they are just one component of the game; not the entire game itself. So player one in your example could be very happy that the game exists, but still acknowledge that the game was what we classify as “zero-sum”.
This post was edited on 3/19 at 12:35 pm
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by JakeRStephenes on 3/19/20 at 12:28 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?
It's called a sum, dimwit. You have to add both outcomes together.
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by NewGrad1212 on 3/19/20 at 12:29 pm to JakeRStephenes
Look at it from the frame of reference of the "game", like you are the dealer and have no stakes in it.
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by funnystuff on 3/19/20 at 12:34 pm to yankeeundercover
quote:As for this question, it depends on the stakes, the relationship between the players, and the alternate options available.
Player 1 might “admit” that it was a “zero sum game”, but he wouldn’t really care, right?
In your M&M example, sure, the stakes are sufficiently small and there is likely no preferable way to split the good that this zero sum game is the best way to go and one that player 1 is perfectly happy with.
But more broadly thinking, about economics in particular, there tend to be far better options available than zero sum game dynamics. In fact the very nature of something like trade is that it is not a zero sum game; but rather a mutually beneficial one.
Further, even if player 1 is made materially better off, there are other things that influence player 1’s well being than just their consumption. For example, most people don’t enjoy seeing their neighbors suffer; it’s why charities exist. And most people hold aspects of fairness in high regard; it’s why people tend not to steal things even in instances where they are certain they can get away with it.
Which is all to say, thinking about player 1’s reaction to winning a zero sum game as unequivocally positive is probably too strong of a conclusion. Especially if player 1 feels affinity for player 2 and/or there are alternative options available where the game does not need to be zero sum in the first place.
re: Can someone adequately explain “Zero Sum Game Theory”? (Updated)Posted by yankeeundercover on 3/19/20 at 1:04 pm to funnystuff
quote:So basically, in real life terms, and barring a very simplistic example live in the OP, there are many more factors that come into play is what you’re saying, I suspect.
Especially if player 1 feels affinity for player 2 and/or there are alternative options available where the game does not need to be zero sum in the first place.
Let’s say the guy who won the coin flip, hated chocolate and was asking for the M&M for a friend and so he has no intrinsic “value” on the M&M, conversely, the losing playing LOVES chocolate, so the utility placed on the M&M by each player is obviously different, so the “winning” by Player 1 was nominal and the “loss” of Player 2 is a lot more impactful... but from the “third-party game theory observer’s perspective”, the transaction was, at the observer’s level a “net zero”...
And if I’m understanding this correctly, this theory gets EXPONENTIALLY more complex with real-life examples/situations...
If this understanding is correct, thanks everyone for your responses
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News