What's your strategy?
>>275267274always play the unique card first
>>275267274Don't sign contracts on behalf of other people and avoid ever getting into debt with criminals to begin with.
>>275268181That might work on the kings side but on the slaves side you have an 80% probability of losing assuming the opponent plays a random card.So overall all it's not as simple as "play the special card"
>>275267274The second and fourth.
>>275268905Shit strategy
Come forth, Blue-Eyes White Dragon!
>>275268867But they're probably not going to play randomly. They have the highest chance of winning on the first turn by playing the Emperor, so they'll probably plat the Emperor. So playing the Slave is the right choice.
>>275268181/thread>>275268867For the King's player the optimal play is to play the King first because your odds of having a slave played just increases as less cards are in play. The Slave player has to optimize the odds of getting the King played against it, but since there's no way to actually tell until it's too late, for the Slave player the only real play is to play the Slave first and HOPE he guessed right, because the optimal play for the King player is to play it first. You might argue "but if that's so, the King should play second!" which is a slippery slope that ends in the King player being more and more likely to lose because his odds keep getting worse the more the game advances. The King player will almost always win by playing it first, especially in context, where the Slave player will LITERALLY die if he plays it wrong, so he's unlikely to shotgun it unless he has nerves of steel.In the show itself the game only had strategy because one of the players was cheating.
>>275270851>For the King's player the optimal play is to play the King first because your odds of having a slave played just increases as less cards are in playLet's assume you encounter a high iq player who realizes this strategy and makes you lose two games as king in a row by playing slave first as well. What do you do?
>>275270851>>275268181It's a game of psychology, the probability is only half the game. Playing emperor first only gives you an 80% winrate if you assume the slave player is picking a card completely at random.
>>275270851To add on your commit, you're committing the fallacy of deducting a strategy based of the optimal strategy of the other side, while the game has imperfect information and you don't know which side you will be OR what the opponents strategy will be.Sure if you go "it's best to play king first statistically speaking, so for the slave side it's best to play slave first in return".But you could literally invert that statement and say "it's best to play citizen first for the slave side statistically speaking so it's best to play king first for the king side"Notice how we now have two different strategies for the slave side, and depending on the information level you expect the opponent to have you can do either? So no, for the slave side it's not as simple as "play special card first". If you assume your opponent considers you knowledgeable about these assumptions of strategy, he definitely could get the idea of playing citizen first in expectation of you playing slave first. In that case, you'd have to play citizen first to outsmart him.
>>275267274I just play the unique card at random and let luck deal with it. I'm no good at mind games.I especially don't do anything retarded like always playing the unique card first.
>>275272230>I always play the unique card at randomIf your opponent catches onto that, he'll have an 80% win rate on the kings side by playing king first, and a 80% * 75% * 66% (probabilities of you not picking the king at random) ≈ 40% chance of winning on the slave side by constantly playing citizens.Meaning long term you'd lose with your non strategy
>>275272381The entire point of the game is that the slave player will lose long term with virtually any strategy.
>>275272381if it's completely random, doesn't that mean that the emperor will have a 80% chance to win no matter which turn you play it on?
>>275272381>he'll have an 80% win rate on the kings side by playing king firstHe'll also have an 80% win rate with literally every other strategy, you can't do better or worse against a random choice.>80% * 75% * 66% (probabilities of you not picking the king at random) ≈ 40% chance of winning on the slave side by constantly playing citizens???I have no clue how your calculation is supposed to work. If the opponent always plays citizens until the last one, I still win 80% of the time.
>>275272459No, the chance decreases with each turn but it never goes below 50% (draw in 4th round equates to a loss). So statistically speaking you should always play king first if you're on the king side. On the slave side you're statistically at a disadvantage but you can pick to paths:>mitigate your losses by picking citizen where statistically speaking you have a 80% chance of drawing and so on, until you end up in the 5th round (20%) chanceOR>assume the king will use the king strategy and play slave first
>>275267274King side?shuffle my cards and play one at randomSlave side?shuffle my cards and play one at random
>>275272570how the fuck does the chance go down when each turn there's a chance that they play the slave and die and your chance becomes 100% win for the rest of the game after that point
>>275272515>>275272570The problem with all this probability talk is that there very little probability involved when humans pick a card, especially in a game like this. So it really does become a game of psychological strategy and your assumptions of the opponent.Nobody is gonna look at his cards and truly pick one randomly
>>275272633Which is why you don't even look at your cards, if you have the house edge.
>>275272664The king side is the easy one, the high iq strategising starts when you're on the slave side
>>275272622turn 1:>Opponent picks slave is 1 in 5turn 2:>Opponent picks slave is 1 in 4turn 3:>Opponent picks slave is 1 in 3turn 4:>Opponent picks slave is 1 in 2turn 5:>Opponent picks slave is 1 in 1
>>275272697lemme draw out a decision tree and show you what I mean
>>275272685Stripped of all the theatrics, the game is "both players pick a number from 1 through 5, the Slave wins if they pick the same one."No matter what strategy you think you have, if at least one of the players picks randomly the odds are already fixed.
>>275271860In both of these assumptions is optimal for the King player to play first, so even if you account for both, it's optimal for the slave player to play it first too.>If you assume your opponent considers you knowledgeable about these assumptions of strategy, he definitely could get the idea of playing citizen first in expectation of you playing slave first. In that case, you'd have to play citizen first to outsmart him.No, because the king player has better odds if you end the game turn 1. It's the slave the one that has the interest to drag the game on. You can make the slippery slope "but what if he reads my mind!!" in any scenario. This is not a game that has a 100% surefire way to win. But playing it first is objectively the best play.>>275272633In context, the Slave player literally dies if he loses the game. So while he should, he's even LESS likely to play the slave first because he'll see the citizen as the safe option.
>>275272948>But playing it first is objectively the best play.No, the objectively best play is picking randomly.Because King First always loses to Slave First.
I suspect all the people saying "Just play special card first every time" are also the kind of people that say "It makes no difference if you switch doors because it's 50/50 either way".
>>275272999If the player picks randomly King first is still the best option.
>>275272948>In context, the Slave player literally dies if he loses the game.The game had 4 sets interchanging king/slave 3 sets each, with 3 rounds each. So 12 rounds in total.Any babby tier "king always first" strategy will be immediately mitigated by the slave side by round three, making you lose 4/6 games as king where you have a statistical advantage. That's what makes the thing so interesting, the balanced rounds are what makes the total odds equal.
>>275273073If the slave player picks randomly you might win 1 in 5, but the slaver player is under no obligation to continue picking randomly.
>>275273030Idk bro, "It makes no difference if you switch doors because it's 50/50 either way" sounds awfully similar to "It makes no difference if you play special card first because it's 80% either way"
Forfiet and go to the mines
>>275267274Rip off my ear to throw my opponent off. Then play the funny looking dude.
>>275273310>get fingers cut off after getting outsmarted by the funny looking dude and lose everything you wonGood job retard
>>275273153You not only don't understand the problems you didn't understand my post either (which tracks I suppose). If you think you should play the emperor first every time because you think it always gives you an 80% winrate, it demonstrates that you think the opponents card is generated at random at the moment of being flipped, with the RNG possibility of it being the slave being based on the opponents current hand size. Which is not the case (unless they're picking at random, which most people probably wouldn't)This is the same logical error people who refuse to switch doors make because they assume either a goat or car is randomly generated at the moment of the door opening, and not that the result was already set in stone before they picked a door.
>>275273358Thanks, lopping that ear off wasn't easy.
>>275272664The rules were you had to look at your card before you played it.
>just play emperor first every time bro then you'll always win 80% of the timeThe problem with a strategy like that is that if your opponent also knows 1st grade fractions like you, they'll also recognize that your statistically best play is emperor first, and always go slave first, meaning emperor player would always lose, so you can't optimize this game with pure probability. So the emperor player must think a step ahead, and base their play on what their opponent knows that they know. But the slave player might also be thinking two steps ahead, in which case the emperor player must think three steps ahead, and this quickly becomes an endless loop where you can basically "But if he knows that I know that he knows that I know that he knows that I know..." forever, so trying to win with speculative psychology is also pretty much a bust. Your actual best bet of influencing the outcome with skill is most likely going for reads. Trying to learn and recognize things the other players subconsciously does, like for example perhaps he always swallows nervously before playing his special card, and adjusting your plays accordingly. But this is also a whole lot of guess work. But in the end, no matter what you try to do, the single biggest factor behind this game will be plain old dumb luck. Just random ass guessing and hoping for the best, which will always be weighed in the emperor players favor. Or you could just cheat like everyone in the show does.
>>275267274Ask my opponent to remove his watch.
>>275272596>>275268181these are the only two real options
I love Kaiji but I'm too retarded to follow the number autism and math shitI used to work at a casino so that shit doesn't matter anyway, the house always wins
ok I understand the trouble hereI am playing as if both King and Slave are playing at randomIf both King and Slave are random, there is, no matter what, an 80% chance that King winsLet us presume that Slave randomly decides to play on round 3. Here I have circled all 4 universes in which Slave has played on round 3. If King were to also play randomly, then there are 2/4 universes where King wins because he played in an earlier round and avoided being killed by slave. The remaining 2/4 universes have 3 routes, one route where King plays Round 3 and loses, one route where King plays round 4 and wins, and one route where King plays round 5 and wins. In a total of 5 universes where Slave randomly decides to play round 3, only one universe gets Slave the win, that means there's a 20% chance that King will win, no matter which round Slave randomly decides to play, IF AND ONLY IF King also plays randomlyTHE PROBLEM COMES IN WHEN YOU ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHICH UNIVERSE(S) YOU ARE FOCUSING ONso we can see the top row which has Civ/Civ being played, then another Civ/Civ/ and then another Civ/Civ, and another Civ/Civ and then finally a King/Slave. You can clearly see that the chances of King winning reduces as you play more and more Civilians. What you are missing is the universes where King decides to play civilian BUT Slave decides to play slave on turn 1, or turn 2 etc.. Those universes where Slave decides to play early in the round whereas King decides to only go civ are important because they even out the rates in which king wins, and they just so happen to even out to 80%. YES, IF YOU ONLY FOCUS ON ONE SPECIFIC UNIVERSE, THEN YES, YOUR CHANCES DECREASE IF YOU DIDN'T PLAY KING ROUND ONEthis completely ignores the fact that slave can play round one, and then King has a 100% chance to win for the rest of the game in that universe, this completely ignores the fact that slave can play on any round while King saves for the last round, guaranteeing his win.
>>275274782>text limithere's the math by the way, and an easier model to understandAnyways, we are arguing two different universes here, I am arguing the entire gamut of options, you are arguing one specific route, we are both correct in our math and logic, it's just that we are arguing two separate problems. Neither of us will stop if we keep arguing two entirely different problems, so I am extending an olive branch in peace and tranquility. We are all correct. Now kiss
