price is right

fuck.... i dont understand

basically it doesn't matter what you guess unless you guess the exact price.


guesser 2 can't guess your price +1 because guesser 3 would guess your price +2


g1: guess a price
g2: guess another price (not g1+1)
g3 : if g2> g1 , g3 decide if g2 is above or not the right price 50% of the time and guess g1+1 or g2+1

ahhh righto makes sense.

cheers

Guesser 1 should be the most aggressive with his price to put later guessers in a tougher spot. Players are typically terrible though.

Player 1 has to guess high. All other options are seriously bad against rational actors since they lead to situations where player 1 gets +1ed.

For example player1 bets a number that he believes is too high 80% of the time (lets call it 80), player 2 can't bet 81 because he'll just get crushed if player 3 bets 82. He also can't bet 1 because he gets crushed if player 3 bets 2. If he bets 61 however, he knows he's safe because since player 3 is a rational actor he'll either bet 1 or 81, both of which clearly have better chances than betting 62. Player 3's chance of going with 81 however does not reflect his immediate chance of winning the game, since the game repeats if all three players go over. So very roughly, if player 3 chooses 81, he and player2 will be perpetually freerolling against player1 in which case they'll have almost a 50% chance each to win the game as a whole. However, that's still less than the immediate 60% chance to win player 3 can take if he just bets 1. So since he's a rational actor he takes it, and players 2 and 3 walk away with around a 20% chance to win.

Note that player1 can still bet high but not high enough. If he bets 70% for example, then player 2 will bet 41%. Then player 3 figures his 50%ish freeroll he gets by betting 71 is better than betting 1 and getting 40%. So player1's chances of winning plummet from 20%ish to 1%ish just by the initial bet being a tad low.

Or at least I think all of that is true, brain hurts a little.

On February 19 2014 17:20 NMcNasty wrote: Player 1 has to guess high. All other options are seriously bad against rational actors since they lead to situations where player 1 gets +1ed. For example player1 bets a number that he believes is too high 80% of the time (lets call it 80), player 2 can't bet 81 because he'll just get crushed if player 3 bets 82. He also can't bet 1 because he gets crushed if player 3 bets 2. If he bets 61 however, he knows he's safe because since player 3 is a rational actor he'll either bet 1 or 81, both of which clearly have better chances than betting 62. Player 3's chance of going with 81 however does not reflect his immediate chance of winning the game, since the game repeats if all three players go over. So very roughly, if player 3 chooses 81, he and player2 will be perpetually freerolling against player1 in which case they'll have almost a 50% chance each to win the game as a whole. However, that's still less than the immediate 60% chance to win player 3 can take if he just bets 1. So since he's a rational actor he takes it, and players 2 and 3 walk away with around a 20% chance to win. Note that player1 can still bet high but not high enough. If he bets 70% for example, then player 2 will bet 41%. Then player 3 figures his 50%ish freeroll he gets by betting 71 is better than betting 1 and getting 40%. So player1's chances of winning plummet from 20%ish to 1%ish just by the initial bet being a tad low. Or at least I think all of that is true, brain hurts a little.

there are 4 bidders on price is right. there is some value also in having the person after you win too as youll be the final bidder on the next round. not sure you can control that too well though.

4 bidders I'm sure is more difficult but I'm guessing the same idea of the lead bidder betting high applies. Not gonna try and tackle that though.

can just as easily say the lead bidder should bet low. 2nd bidder can't bet +1 the amount, and he can't bet 1, so he is forced to bet a higher amount. then 3rd bidder decides if he wants to +1 first bidder or 2nd bidder.

but yeah, price of right has 4 bidders anyway

On February 19 2014 21:14 blackjacki2 wrote: can just as easily say the lead bidder should bet low. 2nd bidder can't bet +1 the amount, and he can't bet 1, so he is forced to bet a higher amount. then 3rd bidder decides if he wants to +1 first bidder or 2nd bidder. but yeah, price of right has 4 bidders anyway

But the second bidder will always adjust his bet a little bit so the third bidder will always +1 the first bidder for a slightly higher chance. So the only way for first bidder to prevent this from happening is to bet high to begin with.

Talk to this guy. He is the Lebron of the PIR

On February 19 2014 17:20 NMcNasty wrote: Player 1 has to guess high. All other options are seriously bad against rational actors since they lead to situations where player 1 gets +1ed. .

This is absolutely wrong.
if you bet 1 , player 2 bet 2 , player 3 bet 3
,
player 2 is the idiot not you.
Player 2 can't +1 you , only player 3 can , and he will +1 you or player 2 anyway.
no matter what you do

player 1 bet x
player 2 bet y with y =/= x+1
player 3 bet x+1 or y+1

you can bet 1 , 90 or 110 it won't change player 2' strategy or 3's

if you bet 1 , player 2 will bet something between 80 and 120 player 3 will bet 2 or [80,120] +1
if you bet 90 , player 2 will bet 110 or 70 and player 3 111 or 71
it changes absolutely nothing.

betting 90 or 110 has the merit to take a shot at the exact price (so you've got 33% + tiny chance) instead of 33% , that's all.

Btw I offer coaching for price is right.
send me a pm , I charge 20% of winnings , 100% guaranteed winner with my coaching.

On February 20 2014 12:12 waga wrote: if you bet 1 , player 2 will bet something between 80 and 120 player 3 will bet 2 or [80,120] +1

No, player3 doesn't randomly choose who to +1, he always picks on who to +1 based on which one gives him the better chance. If player 1 bets $1, then player 2 will bet an amount in which player3 has better chance +1ing player 1 as opposed to +1ing player two. If player 1 bets low, there will always be such an amount so player1 will always get +1ed.

Example:
Player 1 bets $1
Player 2 bets some amount that is too high 55% of the time.

If player 3 +1es player 2, he only wins 45% of the time. If he +1es player 1 he wins 54% of the time. So he'll always +1 player 1.

Ok you're explaining me that player 3 is a genius and can know if player 2 is too high 55%+.
In which case we lost anyway , no point playing.

You don't get it and I already spent waaaay too much time in this thread

On February 20 2014 12:45 waga wrote: Ok you're explaining me that player 3 is a genius and can know if player 2 is too high 55%+. In which case we lost anyway , no point playing.

I was assuming each player has the same idea of the distribution of possible price values. But even if you don't assume that it doesn't mean each player's price values are random, which is why you're still wrong.

nm