[Guest]

OK, so this is technically not a puzzle, but it's an interesting game, psychological debate, and hypothetical quandary.

You and ten other people are placed in a room. One by one the host of this little game calls you out and you are given a choice: Take $1000 dollars and go home now, or decline this offer and the host will give you $50,000 but only if everyone else declines as well! Once you make your choice, the host sends you into another room to wait anxiously while the others are given the same choice.

The main questions that I think are interesting are: (of course) Which would you pick? If the numbers were different, would you conceivably change your decision? What would be the tipping point where if the grand prize were X dollars you would wait it out?

note: This was taken from a book on the psychology of numbers, but I can't remember now the author or the title. If someone knows, please enlighten me.

[Guest]

By the way this will probably end up in others

My choice with these figures and every figure would be too wait - came with nothing went with nothing/max. I would be interested to see the other peoples chioces moer than the prize - but that's an easy gamble to make when it's money you never had and I like a little bet.

Don't know the author

[Guest]

ok..if what you decide is in front of the other 10 members so they know what you have chosen, then you would have to decline cos the others will know they can also go home with the $50 000 by following suit.

If it is confidential then I would guess the $1000 to go home would be the best bet because at least $1000 is better than nothing...that is if you get nothing, that wasn't specified...very interesting...hmmm

In conclusion, I haven't made my mind up yet

[Guest]

I have further questions (as I usually do.)

First, do you know the other people, or are they complete strangers?

Second, do you SEE the other people before having to choose?

The reason I ask is if I knew the others, I could try to wager based on existing knowledge of their financial well being and possibly their tendency to gamble.

And if I was able to simply see all others before choosing, I might be able to decide based on their appearance - i.e. someone who looks homeless probably is, and isn't very likely to turn down $1000 even it waiting COULD mean more.

[Guest]

ok..if what you decide is in front of the other 10 members so they know what you have chosen, then you would have to decline cos the others will know they can also go home with the $50 000 by following suit.

If it is confidential then I would guess the $1000 to go home would be the best bet because at least $1000 is better than nothing...that is if you get nothing, that wasn't specified...very interesting...hmmm

In conclusion, I haven't made my mind up yet

If the decision is made in front of everyone, than the decision is pretty trivial, so I'll assume you decide without knowing what anyone else will do. With these numbers, I think I would decline and go for the 50,000. Not only is 50,000 a big sum for me, it would be for the other people as well, so I'd feel pretty confident they would all decline. Then again, there's always the possibility someone would take the 1000 just to screw everyone else over.

[Guest]

I know myself well enough to know that I'm not that much of a risk-taker. The determination/stubbornness threshold to be the one individual who walks out with the $50K is quite high, and requires someone willing to take a lot of risk. I would definitely take the $1K, and I'd have to be in the last 2-3, knowing the negative responses of everyone before me, before I would even consider going for the whole enchilada.

Interesting dilemma.

[Guest]

Forgeting the problem completly, if you had a choice between $1 000 and $50 000, you would take the $50 000.

Almost anyone will want the $50 000. Therefore, everyone should be sure that the others will choose to decline the $1000.

Also, seeing as it is confidential, if everyone declines do they all get $1 000 or is it only the lucky bugger who goes frist?

This could change my reasoning.

[Guest]

OK, so this is technically not a puzzle, but it's an interesting game, psychological debate, and hypothetical quandary.

You and ten other people are placed in a room. One by one the host of this little game calls you out and you are given a choice: Take $1000 dollars and go home now, or decline this offer and the host will give you $50,000 but only if everyone else declines as well! Once you make your choice, the host sends you into another room to wait anxiously while the others are given the same choice.

The main questions that I think are interesting are: (of course) Which would you pick? If the numbers were different, would you conceivably change your decision? What would be the tipping point where if the grand prize were X dollars you would wait it out?

note: This was taken from a book on the psychology of numbers, but I can't remember now the author or the title. If someone knows, please enlighten me.

Maybe I'm not getting this one, but it seems like a no-brainer to me. This is like the prisoner's dilemma, except there is no dilemma. Anybody would choose $50,000 over $1,000, and so everybody would pass.

[Guest]

Am I misreading ? if everyone declines surely everyone gets $50,000?

[Guest]

I'm not a huge risk taker but I would hold out for the 50k. 1000 isn't a lot in the great scheme of things. 50000 could do wonders (remember those student loans?) If the numbers were different, say, 100,000 to leave and 5 million to stay, I might reconsider and take the cash. I have to say, I would still be pretty dissappointed if I was #10 to be questioned only to find #'s 1-9 have already left $1000 richer!

[Guest]

I'd always take the $1,000. In a group of 9 (that's excluding myself), there would always be at least one person who's willing to risk the $1k for the chance to win $50k. If you lowered or increased the prize, my answer would still not change. As the prize goes down from $50k, the chance that someone would take it will probably stay the same, even as you get towards $2000 and even lower. Out of 9 people, it's probably safe to assume that there is at least one risk taker who would choose the prize even if it was just $1050.

As the prize increases, the likelihood that someone would risk the $1000 probably increases. I'd just take the $1000 to pay for groceries for 2 months.

What would be interesting is to poll people, or count people who reply to this thread. I wonder if my assumptions are correct. I might fall into a small category of people who would always take the $1000. Or I might be in a big category (say, 999 people out of 1000). If that's the case, then it might be safe to risk the $1k.

[Guest]

If the decision is made in front of everyone, than the decision is pretty trivial, so I'll assume you decide without knowing what anyone else will do. With these numbers, I think I would decline and go for the 50,000. Not only is 50,000 a big sum for me, it would be for the other people as well, so I'd feel pretty confident they would all decline. Then again, there's always the possibility someone would take the 1000 just to screw everyone else over.

Forgeting the problem completly, if you had a choice between $1 000 and $50 000, you would take the $50 000.

Almost anyone will want the $50 000. Therefore, everyone should be sure that the others will choose to decline the $1000.

Also, seeing as it is confidential, if everyone declines do they all get $1 000 or is it only the lucky bugger who goes frist?

This could change my reasoning.

I think what the real "question" is is, what amount of money would you be willing to lose $1000 on. One just can't assume that EVERYONE will want the $50,000 because there are people who would rather have a sure $1000 than risk $50,000 or nothing based on something they have no control over (as opposed to let's say Jeopardy where in you have a chance to win the money based on your knowledge).

With that being said, the debate is, how much is "worth the risk" in other words:

It's like the lotto. People think the $1 for a lotto ticket is worth the risk for the chance (no matter how slim) to win millions.

But if the chances are increased ALONG with the risk (money) would as much people play? if lotto tickets are $100 each, there'd be more of a chance to win because less people would be inclined to play.

[Guest]

I think that it is very similar to the prisoner's delimma with 10 prisoners instead of 2 and with a substantially high reward compared to risk.

But to answer the questions:

1- I would pick a chance to win $50K over the guaranteed $1K

2- If the numbers were different, I would change my decision. If there were more contestants, the chances of somebody rejecting the $50K offer increases. Also, if the $50K is less or the $1K is more, I would also change my decision.

3- My tipping point would be $10K. Anything below that, I would opt for the sure $1K

4- I don't know the name of the book, but I would imagine any book on the psychology of the masses would have it or something similar

In any case, this concept is the foundation of stock picking. You pick a stock that others are more likely to fancy and not a stock that you like.

[Guest]

I have to agree with bat girl on this one. My answer depends entirely on whether or not I know the others. If I don't know them, and maybe even if I do I am most likely to take the money and run. There is almost no group of 10 poeple that I can think of that I would trust to make the right decision and decline without prior knowledge of the challenge. Even the smartest of poeple will likely outsmart themselves and assume the stupidity of the others and just take the money. I don't think it's a matter of chance or statistics, but one of psychology, and not a matter of selfishness but of risk assessment. At least one in ten would feel the guarantee outweighs the risk at almost any amount, and take the money...and I guess I'm that one. Sorry, but come see me later and I'll buy you a coke with my winnings.

[Guest]

I'd always take the $1,000. In a group of 9 (that's excluding myself), there would always be at least one person who's willing to risk the $1k for the chance to win $50k. If you lowered or increased the prize, my answer would still not change. As the prize goes down from $50k, the chance that someone would take it will probably stay the same, even as you get towards $2000 and even lower. Out of 9 people, it's probably safe to assume that there is at least one risk taker who would choose the prize even if it was just $1050.

As the prize increases, the likelihood that someone would risk the $1000 probably increases. I'd just take the $1000 to pay for groceries for 2 months.

What would be interesting is to poll people, or count people who reply to this thread. I wonder if my assumptions are correct. I might fall into a small category of people who would always take the $1000. Or I might be in a big category (say, 999 people out of 1000). If that's the case, then it might be safe to risk the $1k.

edit:

I guess I may have read the question wrong, or it is written wrong. I was thinking you get the $50k if everyone else declines the $50k. But the way it's written makes it sound like everyone has to decline the $1000 in order for each of you to get the $50,000. In that case, I'd go for the $50k and hope no one in the group is an A-hole.

=)

[Guest]

I think this has to do with Nash equilibriums. Similar to prisoners' dilemma.

[Guest]

The difference between this and the prisoner's dilemma is that this is not game theory, it is psychology. Your decision is based on what you predict other, potentially irrational, people will do. Even if everyone in the experiment is totally rational and seeking to maximize their gains, they don't know that's the case. So you not only have to deal with other people being irrational, but with other rational people making decisions based on other people being irrational.

If you suspect that there might be someone in the group who would choose the 1,000, or you think that someone else might think you would choose the 1,000, then you might also choose the 1,000. Seeing some of the responses to this thread, it seems more than possible that 1 in 10 people would choose the 1,000 in such a situation.

[Guest]

What would be interesting is to poll people, or count people who reply to this thread. I wonder if my assumptions are correct. I might fall into a small category of people who would always take the $1000. Or I might be in a big category (say, 999 people out of 1000). If that's the case, then it might be safe to risk the $1k.

The problem with basing it on the replies to the thread is that other people's answers will surely affect the outcome. For instance, I had just read the question, I probably would have declined and gone for the 50k. After reading a few people say they would take the 1,000, I would now probably take the 1,000 as well. And by saying that, I've influenced the next person's decision.

This is different from the experiment in the OP, because you have a chance to see what other people would do, and one $1000 will cause a snowball / domino effect.

[Guest]

Game theory is based on group psychology and dealing with maximum benefit. Using that reasoning, if everyone - without knowing what anyone else had decided or will decide - thought rationally through the decision steps, everyone would get the $50K.

-What's best for me? =$50K

-What's best for everyone else? =$50K

-If everyone else thinks this, we all win.

[Guest]

i would play it safe and go for the $1000, it's an easy $1000 and everyone else can be $1000 wealthier, why chance a guaranteed thing

[Guest]

does the guy have the money with him or somewhere else

[Guest]

I would definetly go for the $50k. True, I could have $1000, but in comparison wouldn't everyone rather have 50 times that?

I think there should be a poll on this, see how many people vote for each thing.

[Guest]

Game theory is based on group psychology and dealing with maximum benefit. Using that reasoning, if everyone - without knowing what anyone else had decided or will decide - thought rationally through the decision steps, everyone would get the $50K.

-What's best for me? =$50K

-What's best for everyone else? =$50K

-If everyone else thinks this, we all win.

Again, as mentioned by myself and a few others, your conclusion makes perfect sense assuming not only that everyone in the group thinks rationally, but also assuming that they all believe the others will think rationally. So if everyone in the group of ten is from this forum, or MENSA, then everyone's 50k richer, otherwise I will always trust in the irrationality others.

[Guest]

does the guy have the money with him or somewhere else

Awesome! Well played! I say the ten of us jump him and split the cash evenly!

[Guest]

Game theory is based on group psychology and dealing with maximum benefit. Using that reasoning, if everyone - without knowing what anyone else had decided or will decide - thought rationally through the decision steps, everyone would get the $50K.

-What's best for me? =$50K

-What's best for everyone else? =$50K

-If everyone else thinks this, we all win.

Well put. There is only a dilemma when there is a conflict between the individual's interests and those of the group.

Having said that, I truly am very surprised anybody would opt for the $1,000. It makes no sense at all to me. There is absolutely no risk if everybody behaves rationally.

[Guest]

As long as the guy asking the question doesn't rationalize it, I think most people's natural instinct would be to take the $50k. Most people probably wouldn't even consider the risk that someone else might not decline the $1000.

Initial thoughts of the average person, "Is this a trick question? Of course I'll take the $50k. Nobody is stupid enough to pick the $1k."

The funny thing is that a smart person is probably more likely to mess it up for everbody. A smart person or someone who has heard this proposition before.