Comments on: Truels, or how game theory may explain survival of the weakest http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/ Articles on game theory and personal finance Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:56:44 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Adnan http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/comment-page-1/#comment-6680 Adnan Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:00:30 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/#comment-6680 I can't believe I read this last year but only now did I think of this. In regards to the shooting truel with Charlie being the first shot, I think it not only behoove him to purposely miss, which you said, but to never shoot at Adam. The reason is that there's no guarantee that Adam and Bob are completely rational, and being shot at would probably put Adam on the defensive and want to kill Charlie even if he's not a big threat. Same would go with Bob, except Bob is not a guaranteed hit, so shooting and missing Bob first might work. I wonder if Charlie should just obviously shoot so badly that both opponents have no suspicion as to his bad shooting (shooting very wide) or if he should show them both he refuses to shoot first by shooting into the air or putting his gun away. No point in wasting ammo after all, especially if it's limited. Though this might draw suspicion. Also, I'm terrible at poker, but often manage to knock out a few players because I'm not a big threat, and have managed to win a game...sometimes people let me get chips because they know they'll get it back from me. I can’t believe I read this last year but only now did I think of this.

In regards to the shooting truel with Charlie being the first shot, I think it not only behoove him to purposely miss, which you said, but to never shoot at Adam. The reason is that there’s no guarantee that Adam and Bob are completely rational, and being shot at would probably put Adam on the defensive and want to kill Charlie even if he’s not a big threat. Same would go with Bob, except Bob is not a guaranteed hit, so shooting and missing Bob first might work.

I wonder if Charlie should just obviously shoot so badly that both opponents have no suspicion as to his bad shooting (shooting very wide) or if he should show them both he refuses to shoot first by shooting into the air or putting his gun away. No point in wasting ammo after all, especially if it’s limited. Though this might draw suspicion.

Also, I’m terrible at poker, but often manage to knock out a few players because I’m not a big threat, and have managed to win a game…sometimes people let me get chips because they know they’ll get it back from me.

]]> By: Lee Bradley http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/comment-page-1/#comment-5506 Lee Bradley Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:27:50 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/#comment-5506 If Cody thinks he's late, I got him beat by 1/2 year. Anyway, I've been working on truels ever since I heard the word 11 days ago. I eventually found your site and noticed the percentages for the two weaker shooters differed from those given in the problem I was given. This motivated me to generalize the computer program I wrote which simulated the situation (it now accepts the shooters' percentages from the keyboard). I only addressed the case that the first and weakest shooter intentionally misses on his first shot. The mathematics which analytically solves this situation and a computer program which simulates it may be seen if you follow the thread at http://tobee-interpres.blogspot.com/2009/08/zee-da-gud-tobee-da-badd-and-luna-da.html The simulated probability that the weakest shooter will survive matches up well with the analytically determined probability. It was fun thinking about this problem and, like most computer programs, took many revisions to get it "just right." If Cody thinks he’s late, I got him beat by 1/2 year.

Anyway, I’ve been working on truels ever since I heard the word 11 days ago. I eventually found your site and noticed the percentages for the two weaker shooters differed from those given in the problem I was given. This motivated me to generalize the computer program I wrote which simulated the situation (it now accepts the shooters’ percentages from the keyboard). I only addressed the case that the first and weakest shooter intentionally misses on his first shot. The mathematics which analytically solves this situation and a computer program which simulates it may be seen if you follow the thread at

http://tobee-interpres.blogspot.com/2009/08/zee-da-gud-tobee-da-badd-and-luna-da.html

The simulated probability that the weakest shooter will survive matches up well with the analytically determined probability.

It was fun thinking about this problem and, like most computer programs, took many revisions to get it “just right.”

]]> By: Presh Talwalkar http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/comment-page-1/#comment-5268 Presh Talwalkar Thu, 21 May 2009 06:21:16 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/#comment-5268 <b><em>Cody</b></em>: Chip stacks do seem to matter much more in poker, especially since weaker players are more damaged by increasing blind antes = less time to ride out luck. Cody: Chip stacks do seem to matter much more in poker, especially since weaker players are more damaged by increasing blind antes = less time to ride out luck.

]]> By: Cody http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/comment-page-1/#comment-4584 Cody Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:04:49 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/#comment-4584 I know this is way late for the discussion, but another important point in Poker is how an individual round can work out. When a weak player meets a strong one in a head to head duel, it must be noted that he must usually win numerous hands in a row in order to defeat the strong opponent. There is no 50% KO chance like in the truel. The most the leader can lose is the total of the weak player's chips at a time. This usually makes a comeback very difficult. I know this is way late for the discussion, but another important point in Poker is how an individual round can work out. When a weak player meets a strong one in a head to head duel, it must be noted that he must usually win numerous hands in a row in order to defeat the strong opponent. There is no 50% KO chance like in the truel. The most the leader can lose is the total of the weak player’s chips at a time. This usually makes a comeback very difficult.

]]> By: RohoMech http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/comment-page-1/#comment-288 RohoMech Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:22:26 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2007/09/25/game-theory-tuesdays-i-challenge-you-to-a-truel/#comment-288 @Presh I think Joe P was asking for a solution to his poker puzzle as well....though it seems like the weaker player will get defeated. @Presh

I think Joe P was asking for a solution to his poker puzzle as well….though it seems like the weaker player will get defeated.

]]>