price is right

what is the optimal strategy for the 1st contestant (1st out of 3 guessers) on the price is right?

they always get fucked over lol.

guesser 1 = lower price
guesser 2 = highest price
if g2 estimation is above the right price >50% of the time then g1 price + 1
if g2 estimation is above the right price <50 % of the time then g2+1


oh shit I misunderstood the question .
well yeah we're fucked :D

Act like you're a complete idiot imo

seems like if player 2 and 3 arent retarded. 1 should always lose expect if he guesses the exact price

nah
if the price is 100
you guess 1
player 2 guess 101

you've got a 50% to win. and none of them are stupid.

but whatever player 2 guesses, player 3 should guess (1 + the guess)

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