From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:35:32 GMT

shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes: 

>In article <9JAN199302380834@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
>(CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>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.

(and goes to suggest a different deal, avoiding the player-A-has-no-incentive-
to-do-this problem)

Well, better in some ways.  But now the fatal flaw in the plan is that Player
C doesn't actually have the incentive to go through with the deal, if Player A
misses the hotels as the original poster claimed.  You see, the rationale
stated was that if A misses B's hotels, C should go ahead and give A back his
property because there's a "good chance" (the original poster's assessment,
not mine) this will happen again and again and C will be making some money off
of it every time.  Now that you've taken C's profit away, he has no reason
whatsoever not to doublecross A the first time it happens, if A misses the
hotels and subsequently wants his money back.  This is because the best
thing that can now happen to C is to have all of As money and property and
that's what he's got.  (BTW, in the event of an "auction", I also note that
player B has no incentive not to doublecross player A, either.)

(Of course, I don't really agree that the potential of the 30% profit happening
repeatedly would make it worthwhile for C to go through with the deal, either.
But at least it was an arguement.)

Ergo, both plans have fatal flaws.  I don't really believe there's anything
profitable to be worked out along these lines.

Fred