"Richard Irving":
#>#> ...A zero-sum game is one where total gains and losses by all
#>#> participants adds up to 0.
Rookie-Move:
#> if "participants" don't include the Bank, then Monopoly is not a zero-sum
#> game by this criteria, since all players' condition might (possibly)
#> suffer through time to a point where both, propertiless, observe one of
#> the put out of the game by a Pay Each Player or Pay Hospital Bill Cards.
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>:
# You are arguing this based on the wrong premise. The objective of the game
# isn't to accumalate Monopoly money, but to be the only player who doesn't
# go bankrupt. You would be correct to argue that it is possible for all
# of the players to go bankrupt. However, the odds of this happening in
# a game where players weren't all trying to go bankrupt is miniscule and
# can safely be ignored when analyzing the game.
substantially agreed.
#> given the aim-oriented activity of Monopoly, the gains are property
#> and other items which might drive players out of the game. "Get Out Of Jail
#> Free" Cards would not be helpful toward this end, but might keep one from
#> losing valuable time where one might collect rent, Go-money, or some boon,
#> or even an avoidable negative (because Jail doesn't charge rent to stay).
#
# But the value of these items is in probability of winning, not in monopoly
# money.
in the final analysis, "winning" = "absorbing all the Monopoly money of
the other players" through the leverage of property, generally (if you
really do want to ignore are miniscule possibilities and factors,
of which the Bank will not be one).
#># Monopoly is not a "money" game for most folks. You don't ante 10 bucks and
#># then at the end of a six-player session have one player with 60 bucks and
#># five players with grimaces.
#>
#> now you're describing the META-game. that is, you've transcended the game
#
# This isn't outside the game itself, and while it might be part of a larger
# meta-game, so are all of the normal rules of the game....
the point is that the currency of bankruptcy is Monopoly money and that is
what is used to measure whether or not another player has won (when all the
rest have been eroded in their Monopoly money holdings to below zero). that
all this money (and the properties they may have purchased with such money)
doesn't go to the winning player is relevant in considering 'zero-sum',
but gamer notions of zero-sum.
#> context and are describing conventional-world motivations for playing.
#> that is confusing and likely to lead to term-squabbling.
#
# It isn't confusing if you use the normal meaning of zero-sum games.
apparently "normal meaning" doesn't apply to gamer games, which is why
you are specifying that differentiated category here and why there are
so many confusing tangents taken within this thread, which I'm teasing
into a diversified and stratified spectrum.
#> Monopoly money
#> is *imperative* to winning the game. without the beginning $1500 and the
#
# But its value isn't linear or constant in how much it helps you win the
# game and is a poor measure of your probability of winning.
I don't know why it ought be considered such a 'poor' measure. those who
retain Monopoly money (as through owning property and avoiding landing
on that of others) are more likely to be able to purchase other properties
which may be used to drive their opponents out of the game. this is the
reason why in variants where "free lands" are a commodity those who have
them are more likely to win -- because their money and the properties
and buildings which the money purchased will not be reduced by
indebtedness as a result of landing on properties owned by opponents.
once one has no Monopoly money and incurs debts, properties must be
sold or mortgaged *for* Monopoly money to pay off those debts.
as regards linear and constant value, completely agreed. it seems
somehow indirect.
# People don't play to maximize their money, they play to maximize
# their chance of winning.
and Monopoly money factors into that, yes.
#> except in Monopoly, where the Bank might collect it up, as
#> described above.
#
# In poker the players get to keep the money, in Monopoly the don't.
the winner keeps the Monopoly money until the game ends. the losers
sell off their properties and exchange it for Monopoly money and
pay their debts until their Monopoly money is gone, at which point
they lose the game.
# By your definition
not sure which one this was. I was attempting to accommodate the
expression of Richard Irving and others who sought to infuse the
'games' of game theory into the gamer world and lexicon. this is
confusing and so I'm drawing out multiple possibilities,
including various definitions of "participant". see above.
# the bank wins every game as the money all goes back into the bank
# at the end of the game.
only if the Bank is considered a "participant" so that we could
find some way of making is "zero-sum" by accounting for all the
Monopoly-money-property exchanges of ownership through time.
#> "winner" again seems to someone to be a determinant for fun 'zero-sum'
#> meanings. is your contention that N's victory over N-1 is *indicative*
#> or *determinant* of its zero-sum character? ...superficial
#> significance for "zero-sum" (one winner) ....
#
# It isn't useless.
I'm sure it isn't, even if it is confusing without clear explanation
and intrusion into board game forums where economic "games" that have
different definitions are usually misunderstood as something else.
# It was devised by economists where "games" are mostly like poker
# where people can win or lose varying amounts of utility (money or
# other resources) and hardly any "games" are winner take all as
# are the kinds typically played by gamers.
yes, I gather from Parlett and others that it really does require
the double-quotes ("games") due to its specialized usage. whether
game theory "games" *are* games is a relevant issue to be resolved.
#> that just analyzes the 'zero-sum' quality of the META-game or
#> requires a particular dimension of application. we should also
#> be able to analyze the game's INTERNALS and determine whether
#> it qualifies for the applied meanings. it has been sufficiently
#> analyzed regarding Monopoly within this thread:
#
# Whether a game is zero sum or not doesn't directly depend on its
# internals.
within the special "zone" where "zero-sum" is discussed by gamers,
it might mean almost anything we want to make it mean.
# It depends on the payoff matrix. In some cases you may be able to
# calculate the payoff matrix or get a reasonable approximation that
# will allow you to use game theory to help you play the game. In
# most games that gamers play, this isn't going to be the case.
that appears to be the primary focus: can Monopoly be stretched
into some kind of pay-off matrix? internally it doesn't appear so
because of the Bank (do you agree?). considering its rules and
enjoyment and the fun of winning and many other factors it may
be morphed into some pay-off matrix that allows game theory
fun with board gaming rudiments.
# In some games there will be a minigame with the game for which
# you might be able to make an approximation suitable for analysis
# to help you make some decisions. I don't think there are a lot
# gamers' games that even that situation applies.
that's my impression too, but we could make it up or contend
it in order to incite confusion and draw attention to homonyms.
#> usually people talking within this thread with coherence and logic
#> indicate that the aim-oriented activity of the game should be
#> examined and measured out to see if all that was lost by the
#> losers is gained by the winner(s), and in fact that whether a game
#> is one by 1 person, 2 people, or a team of 100 people really is of
#> NO importance to whether it all balances out for gains/losses THAT
#> ARE WITHIN THE GAME (the whole *game* win/loss thing is a META-game
#> consideration, and confuses the usual analysis of the game's innards).
#
# No it doesn't. The reason analysis is hard is that the games are
# complicated. Multiplayer games are especially limited in what
# economic game theory has to say about them.
but since this is gamer territory, economic game theory can stuff it.
multi-player 'zero-sum' apparently either has to do with whether one
single player comes out on top with the others losing, or some set
number of parts of the game are divided and won/lost by the winner
and losers in equal amounts. then it qualifies. what economic game
theorists have to say about it all got left behind when "game" was
misconstrued. :)
Rookie-Move
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
|
|