IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2209.07451.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Trail of Lost Pennies: player-funded tug-of-war on the integers

Author

Listed:
  • Alan Hammond

Abstract

We study random-turn resource-allocation games. In the Trail of Lost Pennies, a counter moves on $\mathbb{Z}$. At each turn, Maxine stakes $a \in [0,\infty)$ and Mina $b \in [0,\infty)$. The counter $X$ then moves adjacently, to the right with probability $\tfrac{a}{a+b}$. If $X_i \to -\infty$ in this infinte-turn game, Mina receives one unit, and Maxine zero; if $X_i \to \infty$, then these receipts are zero and $x$. Thus the net receipt to a given player is $-A+B$, where $A$ is the sum of her stakes, and $B$ is her terminal receipt. The game was inspired by unbiased tug-of-war in~[PSSW] from 2009 but in fact closely resembles the original version of tug-of-war, introduced [HarrisVickers87] in the economics literature in 1987. We show that the game has surprising features. For a natural class of strategies, Nash equilibria exist precisely when $x$ lies in $[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$, for a certain $\lambda \in (0,1)$. We indicate that $\lambda$ is remarkably close to one, proving that $\lambda \leq 0.999904$ and presenting clear numerical evidence that $\lambda \geq 1 - 10^{-4}$. For each $x \in [\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$, we find countably many Nash equilibria. Each is roughly characterized by an integral {\em battlefield} index: when the counter is nearby, both players stake intensely, with rapid but asymmetric decay in stakes as it moves away. Our results advance premises [HarrisVickers87,Konrad12] for fund management and the incentive-outcome relation that plausibly hold for many player-funded stake-governed games. Alongside a companion treatment [HP22] of games with allocated budgets, we thus offer a detailed mathematical treatment of an illustrative class of tug-of-war games. We also review the separate developments of tug-of-war in economics and mathematics in the hope that mathematicians direct further attention to tug-of-war in its original resource-allocation guise.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan Hammond, 2022. "On the Trail of Lost Pennies: player-funded tug-of-war on the integers," Papers 2209.07451, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.07451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07451
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pedro Dal Bó & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2019. "Strategy Choice in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(11), pages 3929-3952, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Masaki Aoyagi & Guillaume Frechette & Sevgi Yuksel, 2021. "Beliefs in Repeated Games," ISER Discussion Paper 1119rr, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised May 2022.
    2. Heller, Yuval & Tubul, Itay, 2023. "Strategies in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma: A cluster analysis," MPRA Paper 117444, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Tamas David-Barrett, 2022. "Clustering Drives Cooperation on Reputation Networks, All Else Fixed," Papers 2203.00372, arXiv.org.
    4. Eugenio Proto & Aldo Rustichini & Andis Sofianos, 2020. "Intelligence, Errors and Strategic Choices in the Repeated Prisoners Dilemma," Working Papers 2020_07, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    5. Miriam Al Lily, 2023. "Establishing human connections: experimental evidence from the helping game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 805-832, September.
    6. Wu, Steven Y., 2021. "Determinants of Relational Contract Performance: Experimental Evidence," 2021 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting (Virtual), January 3-5, 2021, San Diego, California 308455, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Gallo, Edoardo & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan & Teh, Tat-How, 2019. "Cooperation in an Uncertain and Dynamic World," MPRA Paper 97878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Jörg Spiller & Friedel Bolle, 2013. "Inter-Generational Thoughtfulness in a Dynamic Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 008, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
    9. DeAngelo, Gregory & McCannon, Bryan C., 2017. "Theory of Mind predicts cooperative behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-4.
    10. Kamei, Kenju, 2015. "Endogenous Reputation Formation: Cooperation and Identity under the Shadow of the Future," MPRA Paper 61657, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ding, Zhen-Wei & Zheng, Guo-Zhong & Cai, Chao-Ran & Cai, Wei-Ran & Chen, Li & Zhang, Ji-Qiang & Wang, Xu-Ming, 2023. "Emergence of cooperation in two-agent repeated games with reinforcement learning," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    12. Marco Lambrecht & Eugenio Proto & Aldo Rustichini & Andis Sofianos, 2021. "Intelligence Disclosure and Cooperation in Repeated Interactions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9372, CESifo.
    13. Normann, Hans-Theo & Sternberg, Martin, 2022. "Human-algorithm interaction: Algorithmic pricing in hybrid laboratory markets," DICE Discussion Papers 392, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    14. Normann, Hans-Theo & Sternberg, Martin, 2023. "Human-algorithm interaction: Algorithmic pricing in hybrid laboratory markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Bigoni, Maria & Casari, Marco & Salvanti, Andrea & Skrzypacz, Andrzej & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2022. "It’s Payback Time: New Insights on Cooperation in the Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma," IZA Discussion Papers 15023, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Masaki Aoyagi & V. Bhaskar & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2019. "The Impact of Monitoring in Infinitely Repeated Games: Perfect, Public, and Private," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-43, February.
    17. Lijia Tan & Lijia Wei, 2014. "Special Section: Experiments on Learning, Methods, and Voting," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 313-331, August.
    18. V'ictor Gallego & Roi Naveiro & David R'ios Insua & Wolfram Rozas, 2021. "Data sharing games," Papers 2101.10721, arXiv.org.
    19. Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Rand, David G., 2014. "Who cooperates in repeated games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 41-55.
    20. Aidin Hajikhameneh & Erik O. Kimbrough & Brock Stoddard, 2023. "Do Individualists and Collectivists Cooperate Differently?," Working Papers 23-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.07451. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.