Are the players really rational?

We could argue whether or not this is a game. It could be a series of lousy decisions. However, given that there are 2 players (Raelynn Campbell and Best Buy), there is an interaction (several in fact), and each has an objective (RC to buy a pc and get it serviced, Best Buy to make a profit), and both are aware that they are interacting, I think this does qualify as a game.

See the link to the article about Raelyn Campbell's $54M lawsuit because Best Buys lost her laptop when she took it in for repair under one of those all so valuable extended warranties.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/72016

The table above depicts a series of decisions within this game. The initial decisions were calculated decisions by Best Buys to offer an extended warranty to a customer and that customer purchasing that warranty. Then, the unexpected factor of the PC breaking happened, followed by the unexpected factor of player incompetence when BB lost the laptop. Then the strategies kick back in. Best Buy offering a low dollar amount, RC countering, Best Buy saying bug off, and RC countering with the lawsuit.

So, this calls into question when can we assume the participants are rational or not. Or, rational may be defined differently depending on the participant. And, when a small, helpless customer is facing a huge, mean corporate giant, David/Giant emotion comes into play. Perhaps this emotion is a factor in the payout that the players need to consider.

Intriguing at-bat

The story attached is an interesting game scenerio.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3243227


This is the story of Anthony Gwynn Jr. who plays for the Milwaukie Brewers. He is the son of Tony Gwynn, the hall-of-fame player from the San Diego Padres. Anthony grew up around the Padres. And, he became very close to Trevor Hoffman, a pitcher for San Diego. As fate would have it, Little T faced Trevor Hoffman with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th inning, in a game that San Diego needed to win to make the playoffs.


I think the game player here, was not Gwynn or Hoffman, but the manager of the Brewers, Ned Yost. If considering mixed strategies, and how players need to "randomly" mix up their strengths and weaknesses to keep the other player off balance, Yost played a trump card. Gwynn grew up knowing Hoffman. As the story states, Gwynn learned how Hoffman set up hitters. So, by putting Gwynn into the game at this crucial point, Yost was jumbling up the known statistics with some intangibles. First the familiarity that Gwynn had with Hoffman. Second, the emotion of protege/mentor facing off.

It is also a pretty neat storry.

1 against the crowd

On April 16, 2007 a shooter killed 33 people on Virginia Tech's campus. One of the stories out of this was that the gunman lined up a group of students and shot them in order. A question asked in the ensuing discussion was why didn't they just attack him? This crowd could have certainly overpowered him, why didn't they?

In the story on this link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?bl&ex=1203397200&en=0ff8f82bca320f8f&ei=5087%0A), Representative Lewis is changing his support from Clinton to Obama. Lewis had been a strong supporter and long-time friend of Clinton, but is now changing his support.

What do these two stories have in common?

In a game of a crowd against 1 powerful person (powerful politician or a man with a gun), the early movers face a greater risk than the crowd in total. In the case of charging a gunman, the "hero" or first mover, may pay with his/her life, but the crowd will certainly benefit. This may explain why people don't charge the gunman. It may also explain why the crowd charged the cockpit on United flight 93 on September 11. They likely realized that their likelihood of survival was very low, making it "easier" to make the choice to charge the terrorists.

In the case of Rep. Lewis. By making this move, which goes against an endorsement of Clinton just a few months ago, and pits him against a powerful politician, it will cost him dearly if Clinton should rebound and get the nomination.

In a "1 against the crowd" game, the early mover payout is lower than the 2nd mover, 3rd mover, etc. This may explain a hesitance to act.

What is a game?

A game is an interaction between 2 or more parties, each with a set of desired outcomes and strategies, and each aware of their participation in the game.

There are obvious examples of games....for example...games. In singles tennis, there are 2 participants, each with a desired outcome (to win enough points, to win games, to win sets, to win the match), and they are both aware of the outcome. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3250650

Politics has also been described as a game. This year, in the race for the Democratic nomination for president, there are 2 remaining participants (Obama/Clinton), they both have the desired outcome of winning the nomination, and, they are both aware that they are participating. And, each is using strategies to achieve this outcome, such as with Obama's visit to North Carolina to meet with John Edwards to try to get his support. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

War is also a game. The war in Iraq is a game. There are a miriad of participants (President Bush, Congress, anti-war factions, the U.S. Military, terrorist groups, the people of Iraq, other countries, Iran, and on and on and on). The desired outcomes are fuzzy, but each party has theirs. There are no rules to this game that all participants adhere to. The topic of "waterboarding" is a meta-game that is defining one of the rules for the overall game. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080214/wl_afp/usbushcongressintelligenceveto_080214213137

These are all examples of games.