Professor Paradoxicus has invented a new game. A single card is dealt to each of two players. The cards are consecutive and come from a 9 card deck, each card bearing a distinct integer between 1 and 9. Each player then holds his card (number facing outward) against his forehead; ie, each player can see his opponent’s card, but not his own. The players are then asked whether they want to bet, and if both agree, they examine their own card, with the player who drew the lower card paying his opponent the amount on the higher card.
Professor Paradoxicus has invited three students to analyse the game.
Simplicimus notes that the game is symmetric and zero sum. He asserts that players will be indifferent as to whether or not to bet.
Optimisticus points out that whenever a player sees his opponent holding a 9 he can count on losing. On the other hand, Optimisticus reasons, if the opponent is holding any card N<9, then that player has a 50% chance of winning N+1 and a 50% chance of losing N. Optimisticus asserts that a player will quit when he sees his opponent holding a 9, and choose to play otherwise.
Finally, Sceptisimus expresses the view that a player will refuse to bet unless he sees his opponent holding a 1. He justifies his peculiar opinion as follows: Suppose a player sees his opponent holding a 9. He will certainly refuse to bet. Now suppose a player sees his opponent holding an 8. Clearly, he himself will be holding either a 9 or a 7. In the former case, he can be sure that his opponent will refuse to bet. He concludes that he has nothing to gain by agreeing to bet, but could have something to lose. He therefore should refuse to bet.
Sceptisimus next reapplies this argument repeatedly, with 7 (,6,5..) taking the role of 8 (,7,6..).
What’s your view of these three arguments and how do things change if the players, while still aware that the deck is finite, don’t know what are the lowest and highest numbers?
(In reply to
Solution by Dej Mar)
Hi Dej Mar,
Thanks for stopping by! Some comments on your response:
Sceptisimus' analysis can be summarized as "no player will bet unless they have 100% probability of winning". This argument is faulty in that intelligent people are known to gamble, even if the odds are against them.
The students were asked to analyse the game based on how a rational actor would behave. The criterion for participating is not to have a 100% chance of success, but rather for the outcome to have a positive expectation value.
In addition, his view that if a player sees his opponent holding a 8 that he will have a 9 or 7 is invalid. He could be as likely holding a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1.
You missed a small but important point. The pair of cards dealt out in any round are consecutive. If a player sees his opponent holding an 8, he can indeed conclude he has either a 9 or a 7.

Posted by FrankM
on 20080210 12:52:29 