I've been wanting to write about this for some time. Don't know if I can pull it off in a single post. The note I left myself was, "write about strategy in zero-sum vs non-zero-sum and closed vs open."
Probably have to define those terms. For my purposes, a zero-sum game is one in which the resources are limited and finite. Closed means that only the particular scenario is involved, there are no ramifications for for the future or impacting relationships with the world.
Monopoly (tm) is a zero-sum game. There is only so much property, only so much play money and at the end of the game there will be one winner and everyone else is a loser. Fighting is largely a zero-sum game-- one winner, one loser. But not truly, because sometimes there are two losers. Of the seven basic strategies, fighting is the only one that offers the possibility of a catastrophic win.
Momopoly can be either a closed or open game. So can fighting. More later.
In a zero-sum game, there is no win-win. Every advantage for you is a disadvantage to others. Every time you lose a little ground, your opponent gets stronger and your chances decrease. When faced with this situation, there are two basic strategies-- you can play to win, or you can play not to lose. Playing to win is trying to maximize your advantages and hurt the opponent as much as possible. To increase your abilities and decrease his or hers. Playing not to lose is the strategy of conserving your resources, not falling for traps, getting the opponent to waste energy and resources.
There's always a balance, of course. And the more complex the game the more opportunities there are. So a defensive player can see a sweet opening and switch to offense and a generally offensive player can fortify and rest when they find a lull. Sometimes the strategy is based on personality. This is very much so in Monopoly, because the opponents start with equal resources. Ideally, in competition fighting, weight classes and such are an attempt to balance out most things except for personality.
In reality, though, the strategy chosen is almost never chosen based on personality, but on initial resources and stakes. Those who have more tend to play not to lose. Sometimes, near the end of the Monopoly game, the smartest thing to do is to get sent to jail and just let other people land on your property and pay you. The more skilled fighter frequently waits for the rookie to make a mistake. There is always a chance, no matter your edge in skill or power, that the rookie will get lucky or you will get unlucky. So the person with the edge tends to keep it.
Conversely, when you are behind the eight-ball, you have less to lose by taking chances. Desperate people tend to be aggressive (or submissive, in an open system).
Stakes matter a lot. Except for compulsives, people tend to gamble more when the stakes are low. It is easier to roll dice for betting 1 dollar to win 10 than to wager a paycheck at the same odds. People buy a 2 dollar Powerball ticket with ridiculous odds who would think twice about risking their savings even if the odds were much better. Even if, objectively, the odds were slightly in their favor. There is a study on violence comparing chimps and hunter-gatherer humans. Evidently, both like odds of 5-1 in their favor. Less than that, they peacefully coexist. At 5-1 they massacre. When your own life is on the line, 5-1 odds in your favor seem like the minimum...
That's all zero-sum. Very little in life is a zero-sum game. Money isn't. Wealth isn't. (That's one of the things that bugs me is how few people realize that and how many political arguments are based on the false assumption that economics is zero-sum. Ahem.) Teaching isn't. I can give you all of my knowledge and don't lose a bit of it (I'll lose that to age in time.) Not to get all wishy, but love isn't either. No one needs to love you back. Personal energy? The more you give, the more you have.
In a non-zero-sum game, cooperation and synergy take center as strategies... but be careful. If your opponent thinks it is a zero-sum game, these strategies make you vulnerable. Your attempts to build a trading partner might be used to build an army.
Back in the saddle (Part 2) - Previously on The Budo Blog... Back in the saddle refereed to being on the road again. Travelling cross country with Gary Rudenick. This time it will refe...
1 hour ago