From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:13:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <11JAN199314151960@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.123532.22254@netcom.com>, fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes...
>>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:
>
>>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.)
>
>The chance of a double-cross is obviously there, but I wonder if people really
>get this Machiavellian in Monopoly?  In a tournament, I guess it is possible,
>but in a friendly game?  Also, where does one draw the line at this kind of
>renege on an agreement - suppose I agree to sell you a certain property for a
>certain price; if I can get you to hand me the cash before I hand you the
>property card, can I keep the property and the cash?
>
>
>Dave
>

When we play Monopoly (rarely) and certain other games (Britania for instance),
we declare before the game begins "how binding" deals are. Usually we say that
deals are binding "totaly", "within a turn", or "until the next die-roll".
(sometimes we use other criteria).

- Dealmaking strategies depend on which "variant" we are using.

(The alphabet soup deal described above would work in a "totaly" and a "within
a turn" variant, but not the "until the next die-roll" variant.)

With the above provisio, our games are friendly insomuch that we follow a
code of good playmanship, but are as cut-throat and agressive as possible -
we wouldn't have it any other way. (see Bo-Yin's post on "winning *is* 
everything).

(This method could get bogged down in "legalese" as players claim loopholes in
the language of their deals, but out code of good playmanship prohibits 
making misleading deals or claiming loopholes).


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