$100 to me, $0 to player B
$99 to me, $1 to player B
$90 to me, $10 to player B
$80 to me, $20 to player B
$70 to me, $30 to player B
$60 to me, $40 to player B
$50 to me, $50 to player B
$40 to me, $60 to player B
$30 to me, $70 to player B
$20 or less to me, $80 or more to player B
Not sure why you think we'd be lying about that.
Anyway, bringing this back to the topic - I don't think it's immoral to expect someone to maximize their potential profits so long as they aren't immoral. That is to say, aren't stealing, cheating, lying, etc. If they follow those rules, I would allow it.
Last edited by fredmertz; 06-15-10 at 04:23 PM.
I'd split it 50/50, since that would be pretty much guaranteed to get me $50. I know that if I was offered less than the other guy was taking, I'd be sorely tempted to say no to the deal just out of spite. I'd have to assume he'd be the same way.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Now when you factor in emotions, it's a virtual certainty that the $100/$0 split will be rejected a lot MORE than 50% of the time. With a $100/$0 split, it costs Player B absolutely nothing to take revenge on Player A for screwing him over. Since this deal will certainly be rejected more than half of the time, its expected value is much less than $50. You're better off just offering the $50/50 split.
I'm of the opinion that the ideal offer for Player A is somewhere around $65/$35. It rewards Player A with the lion's share of the pot, but gives Player B enough money that he won't let his emotions get the best of him most of the time.
Last edited by Kandahar; 06-15-10 at 06:56 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Both people are out to maximize there profit
Person A has to determine what the minimum Person B would accept without rejecting the offer, with the knowledge that should person b be offended by the offer Person A will get nothing
$0 to Person B will be rejected a majority of the time as Person B has zero interest in seeing Person A gaining wealth.
$1 to Person B would most likely be rejected a large percent of the time (assuming the people playing have good incomes and good wealth and that $1 or $100 does not represent alot of money to either. Should $1 represent alot of money the chances of it being accepted rises.
The highest # of offers that would be accepted would most likely fall between a 33% to 50% split. As most Adult Americans would not particularly miss $33-50 the chances of them rejecting the money still exists. Overall in the US at this dollar value this is less an exercise in economics and more of one in sociology and what people would view as being fair to all parties.
Change the dollar values and the likelyhood of rejecting a small % drops. For example if the dollar value that was being given was $1 million USD, and you were offered $1000 and Person A would take home $999 000 a higher number of people would take that offer, as $1000 is still a reasonable amount of money. While an equivalent % of $100 would be rejected far more often
Overall with significant dollar values people would accept offer's that were less "fair" as the economic loss would be overcome the sense of loss of fairness in the exchange. This is a failure of this "Game theory" and the way it has generally been presented
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?