From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:09:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.082617.19421@ll.mit.edu>, shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes...
>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.

Yes, you are right.  That is what I meant.  I got mixed up in the alphabet
soup.  You are also correct that there is an element of trust involved.

>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.

Yep, or if B and C are much closer together than A is to either of them, B
could just forget to ask for rent on his hotels when A lands on them.

>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.

Right that is what I envisioned...


Dave