Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
Regardless of whether you elect to buy, sell, or trade properties in the game of
Monopoly, winning is not a sure thing. At a very minimum, the random nature of
the dice ensure that there isn't “one sure path� to winning. Therefore, a decision
analysis such as the one we did for Pascal's Wager cannot include “winning the
game� as one of the outcomes. The best we can hope for is to stay in the game and
continue to have the possibility of winning. Of course, with that comes the possi-
bility of losing as well, but that's why we play the game.
Marci, Meet Blaise Pascal…
We can analyze Marci's peculiar approach to Monopoly in a manner similar to how
Pascal justified his own risk vs. reward scenario. If we construct a decision matrix
similar to the one we used for Pascal's Wager (Figure 7.2), something
does
jump out
at us. We can start by placing Marci's decision—trade or don't trade—along the left
side of the matrix. Along the top, we list the possible
uncontrolled
outcomes. This
represents the notion that, despite Marci's best intentions, people may or may not
get monopolies without help from her. This is similar to the unknown existence of
God that Pascal was facing. By analyzing the matrix as we have done often to this
point, we can find the strictly dominating strategy… that of trading properties.
FIGURE 7.2
The scoring matrix for Marci's Monopoly strategy
shows that the approach of trading properties is the only one where
winning is possible no matter what the other players do.
There is a difference in this dominating strategy than what we have found in
other analyses, however. In this case, it isn't dominating in that it guarantees a win,
but rather in that it gives us a
chance
to win. After that, all the other factors of the
game of Monopoly (including random dice rolls) take over. What we
do find
is
that there is a selection that holds only negative consequences. If we do
not
trade
properties with other players, the best we can hope for is a prolonged stalemate.
