How Can I Find True Love Using Game Theory?
Every Tuesday is a Game Theory article at Mind Your Decisions.
Based on the top search results, you could:
Learn from religious advice (love is what God says it is)
Find your true love’s zodiac sign through a five question quiz (I will love a Taurus)
Consider phone counseling (only to realize you are the real problem)
Man, what a rip-off. How did these answers come up as the most relevant results? They give basically no practical advice.
For all you romantics, there is real hope
It comes from a problem in statistics.
For the sake of this discussion, I define true love as the best person who is willing to date you. Even if that’s not exactly true, I’m wiling to live with that definition. Because if you think your true love is someone that won’t date you, well, I’m not sure any advice can help you.
So for all you reasonable romantics, I offer this hope: if you follow this advice, you’ll maximize your chance of finding true love. The advice will give most people about a 37 percent chance of finding true love.
Yes, it’s not perfect—but I’d say that’s pretty good for a really difficult problem.
Modeling the True Love Game
Dating and relationships are complicated social interactions so they need to be simplified before coming up with any meaningful analysis.
In this statistics game, you search for your true love by dating and having relationships with various people. Your only goal is to find the best person willing to date you—any thing less is a failure.
Here are some ground rules (basically the same rules as on MTV’s show Next):
- You only date one person at a time.
- A relationship either ends with you “rejecting” or “selecting” the other person.
- If you “reject” someone, the person is gone forever. Sorry, old flames cannot be rekindled.
- You plan on dating some fixed number of people (N) during your lifetime.
- As you date people, you can only tell relative rank and not true rank. This means you can tell the second person was better than the first person, but you cannot judge whether the second person is your true love. After all, there are people you have not dated yet.
Now, I know some of these rules are not realistic, but I think the game captures many of the dynamics of the dating world. So let’s take this as a starting point.
How does the game play out?
You can start thinking about the solution by wondering what your strategies are. Ultimately, you have to weigh two opposing factors.
–If you pick someone too early, you are making a decision without checking out your options. Sure, you might get lucky, but it’s a big risk.
–If you wait too long, you leave yourself with only a few candidates to pick from. Again, this is a risky strategy.
The game boils down to selecting an optimal stopping time between playing the field and holding out too long. What does the math say?
The basic advice: Reject a certain number of people, no matter how good they are, and then pick the next person better than all the previous ones.
The idea is to lock yourself in to search and then grab a good catch when it comes along. The natural questino is how many people should you reject? It turns out to be proportional to how many people you want to date, so let’s investigate this issue.
To make this concrete, let’s look at an example for someone that wants to date three people.
Example with Three Potential Relationships
A naïve approach is to select the first relationship. What are the odds the first person is the best?
It is equally likely for the first person to be the best, the second best, or the worst. This means by pure luck you have a 1/3 chance of finding true love if you always pick the first person. You also have a 1/3 chance if you always pick the last person, or always pick the second.
Can you do better than pure luck?
Yes, you can.
Consider the following strategy: get to know–but always reject–the first person. Then, select the next person judged to be better than the first person.
How often does this strategy find the best overall person? It turns out it wins 50 percent of the time!
For the specifics, there are 6 possible dating orders, and the strategy wins in three cases.
(The notation 3 1 2 means you dated the worst person first, then the best, and then the second best. I marked the person that the strategy would pick in bold and indicated a win if the strategy picked the best candidate overall.)
1 2 3 Lose
1 3 2 Lose
2 1 3 Win
2 3 1 Win
3 1 2 Win
3 2 1 Lose
You increase your odds by learning information from the first person. Notice that in two of the cases that you win you do not actually date all three people.
As you can see, it is important to date people to learn information, but you do not want to get stuck with fewer options.
So do your odds increase if you date more people? Like 5, or 10, or 100? Does the strategy change?
The answer is both interesting and surprising.
The Best Strategy for the General Case
From the example, you can infer the best strategy is to reject some number of people (k) and then select the next person judged better than the first k people.
When you go through the math, the odds do not change as you date more people. Although you might think meeting more people helps you, there is also a lot of noise since it is actually harder to determine which one is the best overall. So here is the conclusion:
The advice: Reject the first 37 percent of the people you want to date and then pick the next person better anyone before. Surprisingly, you’ll end up with your true love 37 percent of the time.
The advice is unchanged whether you plan to date 5, 10, 50, 100, or even 1,000 people. Here is a table displaying specific numbers:
|
Number of people you want to date (N) |
Number of people you should reject (k) |
|
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
2 |
|
10 |
3 |
|
25 |
9 |
|
50 |
18 |
|
100 |
37 |
Now I was simplifying matters just a bit because “rejecting 37 percent” is an approximation. There is some math that goes into the exact answer.
To be precise, the exact answer is to find first value of k such that

The full proof is fascinating, though somewhat technical. I encourage my avid math readers to check it out:
http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/Talks/PDFS/Spouse.pdf
A Lesson Learned?
Don’t settle too early.
Suppose that Americans have between five to ten relationships before marriage. This means most people are going to reject the first two or three people, regardless of the person’s quality.
Sounds odd, but it’s just too important to test the market and find that special person. Besides, this strategy improves a person’s odds from a pure random chance (10-20 percent) to almost 37 percent.
Okay great. There’s just one last thing to consider.
Doesn’t the Other Person Play the Game Too?
Game theory would be a lot easier if you could ignore how other people affect the game. So we’re not done yet.
The HUGE caveat is the other person is also trying to game you.
Imagine this: you date a few people, then finally find a great match, and then try to get more serious. Only, that’s not in the other person’s plan.
The other person happens to be less experienced than you, and you happen to be that person’s first serious relationship. As great as you might be, that person is not ready to settle.
The theory suggests you should not feel hurt if someone rejects you like this. You are likely an early victim.
To take advantage of the theory, you should consider whether the other person is ready to get serious. I guess this is why there are certain age clusters when people get married.
But there are things that counter the problem of timing. In real life, you have other strategies to increase your odds not possible in the game:
You some times can rekindle an old flame.
You cannot date simultaneously, but you can often get to know many people at the same time.
You might be able to figure out a true love without having to date many more people. It happens.
And if you are getting more serious, seek out reasonable people who only want to have one or two relationships in their lifetime. You would be in luck, because the math says that they might not reject anyone.
Get my articles to make better money and life decisions
If you liked this, be sure to check out these related articles
The recipe for marriage (a funny ad I saw)
I can figure out your age using a restaurant math trick





22 Responses to “How Can I Find True Love Using Game Theory?”
Hmmm…
Interesting concept, kind of amusing, but I’m not sure how well it works. I’m not sure how much love is a numbers game. If you just reject a person because they are your first serious relationship, you might lose something great.
I think your rule works if the reason you start dating someone is just for the purpose of dating someone or having a relationship. If you start the relationship because you were drawn into it, not because you wanted a relationship, but because that relationship was going to happen whether you were looking for a relationship or not, then I think chances are a lot higher than that relationship is going to work out, whether it’s your first serious one or your tenth.
I think a lot of people stay in current relationships because they’re afraid to look for something better, not because they don’t think there is anything better. I think your method works for that. If people are staying in a relationship not because they’re afraid to look for something better, but because they’re confident that they couldn’t be happier anywhere else, I think the numbers become irrelevant.
Sorry for the essay like response.
It was nice to meet you on Saturday.
By Christina on Jan 8, 2008
Interesting post, though I think there’s a few points to consider.
Lets say trying to find true love is somewhat like trying to buy a really expensive product. Clearly there are some basic needs the product must satisfy, but due to the large cost you’d not only want those basic needs met but met exceptionally well.
So then it becomes a matter of investigation. And I’d say there’s public / private information, and those can be split into objective / subjective categories.
In your example, dating is given as the only way to get information, but that’s not true.
There’s online dating sites, a person’s friends, that person’s blog, that person’s past partners, that person’s family etc.
Those public sources can help determine a lot of things about a person, and even help define your preferences without needing to date a large amount of people.
Now, the difficult part comes from the private / subjective qualities. While you can find other people’s private reactions, its unsure how they relate to your own. Think of the last time you got excited about a movie cause of the reviews but ended up hating it….its a lot like that. Those qualities are tough to determine since they’d require personal interaction to really see how much of a fit they are.
However, people can change during this process, which can invalidate a lot of the research you’re already done. That’s not generally true for a product (though new versions always keep coming out, but you can easily see how those change…) with people it can mean an appealing option is no longer great or a passed-over option now has become quite desirable.
Of course, this all assumes you understand what you base requirements are, and most people have no clue as to what *could* make them happy.
By RohoMech on Jan 9, 2008
This is a fantastic post!
Would I actually follow this method? Um, no. But I think it’s a hilariously over-logical analysis of a ritual most people would never consider examining with statistics.
By Ben on Jan 9, 2008
@Christina: I appreciate (and encourage) long responses, so thanks. Yes, I completely agree it’s dumb to reject a first relationship if you’re only doing it to follow the math. I guess the theory is off since it only cares about finding *the absolute best* person. I mean, you can’t really compare people in an absolute sense, as there are tradeoffs.
@RohoMech: Thanks for the different perspective. Yes, the assumption that you can rank people is subject, and those rankings might change too.
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 9, 2008
@Ben, don’t you spend time evaluating other things (like what shoes to buy, which car to get etc…) why should something like a life-partner be any different?
@Presh / Christina -> Yea, in terms of finding the absolute best person, that might be overkill for people, given that the differences might be marginal but you’d need to go through a few messy breakups to get that small advantage.
Though, I found a great quote about this stuff:
Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion. - Scott Adams
By RohoMech on Jan 9, 2008
@Ben: Glad you appreciated the analysis–your comment made my day.
@RohoMech: Funny Scott Adams said that about religion. He jokingly wrote almost the opposite side for a blog entry:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/the-atheist-who.html
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 10, 2008
This is a good one. There is a good book that I would recommend to all.
Why Flip a Coin?: The Art and Science of Good Decisions by C.H. Lewis. It has got a detailed analysis of the dating game but uses probability as a framework to figure out the strategy althought it has a game theory feel.
Great book and a great read.
Liked the Scott Adams quote in the followup. It reminded me of me when I was young and foolish albeit educated…
Nice.
Mahesh
By Mahesh Vallampati on Jan 10, 2008
Mahesh, I think Presh gave a similar description as what’s in the book? I say this having skimmed what shows up on Amazon.
By RohoMech on Jan 10, 2008
@Mahesh: Thanks for the book recommendation; I’ll put it on my ever expanding “to read” list.
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 10, 2008
Very nice. I’ve long felt that more people should take care of their 37% while in high school, and select a mate while in college. You also need to put some kind of a time limit on those relationships that you know you’re going to end regardlessly.
By Mike on Jan 12, 2008
@Mike - Well, an interesting counter to your point comes from the fact that having kids later in life (for women) directly relates to living longer and the children being healthier:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=25649
So if you find your true love in college, you might wanna wait till later to have kids.
By RohoMech on Jan 14, 2008
This probably isn’t as inaccurate as I initially thought. Except in real life, you can go back to #1 if it turns out you were wrong. Moral of the story: shop around.
By Joon on Jan 15, 2008
@Joon: I also thought the model was very unrealistic until I started to think about it more and saw that it is usually hard to go back. Funny how that works.
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 15, 2008
Obviously, there is the adage, “practice what you preach,” being thrown to the winds here, but I always liked Nada Surf’s proposal from their song “Popular.” Treating dating in high school like checking out a library book sounds like a great way to learn “information,” and to improve yourself as well.
By Erik on Jan 23, 2008
@Erik: It’s not always easy to follow what’s right…Wow, I totally forgot about that song, but after hearing it, it’s now stuck in my head. Blast you for mentioning it
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 23, 2008
@All: I wonder though, is there evidence that shows acting rationally produces happier people compared to acting on emotion?
There are various social studies that tie happiness to religion / love / children / money etc, but it seems that in most cases being happy is independent of the decision process, since its a based on the interplay between expectation and how the future meets that expectation.
By RohoMech on Jan 24, 2008
@RohoMech: Excellent point. The analysis I gave only indicates *how* to find the best person. It does not say you should find the best person. Perhaps you would be equally happy with the second or third best person.
Economics often answers how you can achieve a goal. To figure out what goals are worthwhile, you better investigate psychology. Perhaps that’s why behavioral economics is such a hot topic because it addresses both topics.
By Presh Talwalkar on Jan 24, 2008
Nice one from Good Will Hunting on True Love defined from loss.
By Mahesh on Feb 5, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFof9AD2YlE
By Mahesh on Feb 5, 2008
@Mahesh: Yeah, that’s a good one about experience from a good movie.
By Presh Talwalkar on Feb 6, 2008
There is a show on MTV called “NEXT” where partcipants have to choose between money and a date or get “nexted” where they get rejected or face rejection.
It would be nice to take that data from this show and see how it maps back to theory although I duoubt any of the participants would have taken a course in macro-economics or game theory.
By Mahesh on May 7, 2008
Mahesh: It would be fun to analyze that data. I actually saw one show of “Next” where the person just rejected all candidates in a matter of a few minutes. It didn’t make for good TV, so I wonder how many experiments MTV has to cut entirely.
I never can figure out why people go on shows like that. I have a feeling rational theory would not apply to them
By Presh Talwalkar on May 7, 2008