From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 08:26:17 GMT

In article <9JAN199302380834@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.165042.3596@ncar.ucar.edu>, kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney) writes...
>>>  The most blatant example of this I can think of is a Monopoly
>>>game I was involved in; Player A, facing four of Player B's hotels and about
>>>a 70% chance of landing on one and going bankrupt to Player B, instead offered
>>>to buy Water Works from Player C for all his cash on hand, then sell all his
>>>properties back to Player C for $1.  (In other words, basically go bankrupt to
>>>Player C, rather than taking the chance of going bankrupt to B.)  To his
>>>credit, C told A exactly how much of a jerk he was being, and refused to deal
>>>with him; A landed on B's hotel and went bankrupt, and C would up winning 
>>>anyway.)
>> 
>I haven't played Monopoly in at least a decade, but this seems like a perfectly
>legitimate strategem for A *and* C:
>
>should propose this kind of deal in the situation in question: "Hey there A ole
>buddy - there's a pretty good chance that you're going to go bankrupt by hitting
>those 4 hotels there on Boardwalk and Park Place.  Since I'd hate to see B
>get all your money and properties, I'll tell ya what what I'm gonna do:  I'll
>buy your properties for, say, 70% of their value, and if you miss the hotels,
>I'll sell them back to you at face value.  I won't try to screw you since
>there's a good chance this situation will come up again next time around, and
>I already stand to benefit from the deal if you hit the hotels - we both stand
>to gain here."

Well your idea is fine, but your suggested execution is faulty. First, it is C that should
pay a premium to player A - not the other way around, for the chance to gain of all player's
A assets at a bargain price. second, the objective of the exercise is to leave player A
with no assets during the fatefull roll, you are leaving him with 70% of his equity.
The deal your "player C" offers will never be accepted by a reasonable player A. If he hits
the hotels he is still dead, and if he misses them he loses 30% of his assets (where no
loss would be incurred without a deal). Under no circumstances does player A benefits from
the deal as opposed to no-deal.

This is what player C should really offer:
"Hey, Yo A, wanna make a quick $100? Sure you do! tell ya what, before you roll the
die, you give me all your assets for $1. After you roll (if you are still there), I'll
give you everything back + $100 for that buck back. Couldn't be easier, could it?". 
(multiple transactions might be needed to get both cash and properties across legaly).

Assuming there is no question of mistrust (i.e. Player C does not laugh audibly when, after a
lucky die roll player A has the nerves to ask for the reverse transction "you want what? for $1"),
this deals works well for both sides:
If player A bankrupts on the roll, then player B gets only $1, and player C gets all those free
assets. (Player A doesn't care - he was going to lose anyhow).
If player A survives, player C pays the $100 fee and hope player A won't be so lucky next time.
Player A is willing to buy into the deal because (if he survives), his position would improve.

Now, Player *B* is no dummy either. While player A is studying player C's offer and wondering
if he should ask for more money, player B says 
"Hey, junior, why settle for $100 when I can give you $150 - right now, in cash, so that you
would roll your die now without any manipulations".
A small price for B to pay to insure that if A rolls badly B will get his dues.

No sooner said, and a bidding war starts between B and C until the price reaches some value
in the vicinity of 70% of the assets in question (because there is a 70% chance that the
winner in the "auction" will get those assets for that price).

Well, now the game gets interesting, facing with the prospect of increasing his net worth by
70% in one turn (if he survives) - player A might not feel so hosed after all.



Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.games.board