Cross-posted at Montclair SocioBlog.
I don’t know much about game theory. I’ve always found it hard to squeeze real-life situations into the shape of a prisoner’s-dilemma matrix and to think of life as a game. A game show, on the other hand, is a game. And the final round of the British show “Golden Balls” is totally Prisoner’s Dilemma. (Shouldn’t that apostrophe be moved to make it be Prisoners’ Dilemma? After all, it’s not solitaire.)
You can get the idea of the set-up in the first two minutes of this clip.* But don’t stop there. Watch the full six minutes, and appreciate the ingenuity of the strategy played by Nick (he’s the guy in the brown shirt on the right of the screen).
SPOILER SPACE, which I’ll fill with the “Golden Balls” matrix.
In many prisoner’s dilemma scenarios, the prisoners are separated and can’t discuss their options. In “Golden Balls,” they can talk things over, the only catch being that each player is well aware that the other might be lying. Earlier rounds of the game are designed to encourage lying.
Nick is ingenious in two ways. First, he brings in an option that “Golden Balls” does not include but cannot exclude: the offer to split the loot 50-50 after the show even if the show gives the entire amount to him.
Second (and here is where my lame game-theory knowledge is showing), by convincingly maintaining that he is going to Steal, he destroys the Nash equilibrium that “Golden Balls” tries to create. He forces Ibraham to choose Split, for Ibraham’s position now becomes this:
- If Nick is fully telling the truth about sharing: Split, I get £6500. Steal, I get 0.
- If Nick is lying about sharing: Split, I get 0. Steal, I get 0.
- So my only hope of getting anything is Split.
Which is what he does.
Nick’s ploy also creates an interesting dramatic switcheroo for the viewers as well. As we watch the clip, it looks as though all the pressure is on Ibraham. We can see him debating with himself and with Nick. But after the two men show their balls, we realize that in reality, it’s Nick who had to be sweating, not about which choice he will make – he has already decided that – but about whether he is actually fooling Ibraham. He was betting £13,000 on his own acting ability. That takes balls.
One other observation: I used to watch “Survivor,” and when players would lie and succeed, I might have admired them for being the clever strategist, but I didn’t like them. In fact, I often actively disliked them. But here, when I found that Nick had lied successfully, I was hoping that Ibraham or “Golden Balls” would give him a few extra pounds as a bonus.
* The clip is from February. I found it thanks to Planet Money, which posted it last week without comment.
Comments 20
Eric — May 4, 2012
I object, very strongly, to your pun of saying that it "takes balls" where you meant it takes "courage" or "an appetite for risk". As a male bodied person I am really sick and tired of having my genitalia used to explain my (or other male bodied people's) actions. I find it offensive and reductive.
Brandon — May 4, 2012
I must take this opportunity to highly recommend the book Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life, by Len Fisher.
So there.
Anonymous — May 4, 2012
I agree with Eric about your use of the term 'takes balls'. Offensive and reductive. Also, why don't you watch your use of the term 'lame'. How about you people proof-read some of these posts, especially when you know your commenters are especially attuned to and upset by offensive word usage. I get this everywhere else, I don't need it here. I don't even know why I read this blog anymore.
diamonddame — May 4, 2012
at first I thought he was an idiot for telling the guy he was going to steal either way.. but then I was amazed that he found a way to keep the other man from stealing from him while being fair still... that was a riveting few minutes. lol
Yannick — May 4, 2012
In a proper Prisoner's dilemma, one is supposed to gain more from both players betraying, than the victim obtains when betrayed. It's inherent to the game that the objectively better move is to betray whether or not the opponent betrays.
This one is very different, if someone knows he's going to be betrayed, then the objectively better move is to cooperate. Which means that it is not a proper Prisoner's dilemma.
Redimio — May 4, 2012
Yeah! Stop using the word "lame," it's offensive to the Lamas. Wow, I am being so political now, I feel I am doing a great job!
Btw, the beauty of Nick's decision is that he still choses split, he might just as well have taken steal, but he doesn't. That's what's really missing in game theory, morality.
yunnan — May 7, 2012
A test of ethical decision-making either way. Nick was taking a big risk out here, but if also given his rather moral decision, if Ibrahim had chosen steal, he would have got the whole total (since Nick had chosen split) - and could he have the guts to walk away with the whole thing, knowing the other guy had meant to split it with him all along?
Ploy well-played, either way.
guest — May 8, 2012
The US has (maybe, I don't know if it is still on) called "Friend or Foe" that does that same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_or_Foe%3F