Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
It's game theory.
Imo, Lemon Drop Husker nailed it with post #9 of this thread:
They had multiple entries.
Assuming they colluded:
The first entry had a $1M bonus if they were able to get that entry to win. So they started there.
By focusing 100% of their play on the first entry (and 0% of their play on the second entry) until it became apparent the first entry was dead:
At the point in time when they began making plays for the second entry:
The second entry had 100% of remaining bankroll and 100% of remaining bullets.
They still needed to make winning plays for the second entry.
But assuming you are able to do so: imo, the 100% of remaining bullets part gives the second entry an edge over the other entries in the tournament with less than 100% of remaining bullets.
Game theory.
However, if you assume they colluded, you also have to assume others in the tournament did the same thing.
I suspect they were not the only ones in the tournament who colluded or used game theory.
They just outperformed everybody else.
-jp
.
|
If that is the sum total of the advantage obtained by colluding then perhaps the rules should encourage collusion.
