My show that I've "solved" is cutthroat kitchen. In this show, you don't need to be the best cook until the final round. Before that the object is to "not lose".
The solution - buy the sabotages. Give the sabotages to the cook with the most money. Taking everything personal and retaliating hurts your chances of winning because it increases your chance of losing the round -- and if your retaliee loses, the remaining contestants have way more money than you. Caring about how much money is in your hand also hurts your chances of winning because you become less likely to buy the sabotage.
> Caring about how much money is in your hand also hurts your chances of winning because you become less likely to buy the sabotage.
I haven't seen the show, but if you buy all the way to zero, what's the point of playing then? Is there a prize besides the amount of money you keep? Because if I won and only walked home with $100, it would seem like a waste of time.
It does seem like a good strategy on that game would be to intentionally not win though, as you don't want to come across as a strong cook until the very last round.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but that is a good point.
You start with $25k, then bid on sabotages.... you take home what you keep. It's usually a few thousand, but once I saw someone take home $25k.
If I were an aspiring chef or successful chef -- I see the show as having more risk than possible reward. If you lose, you might be subject to criticism of your cooking, when it should be criticism of game theory.
The solution - buy the sabotages. Give the sabotages to the cook with the most money. Taking everything personal and retaliating hurts your chances of winning because it increases your chance of losing the round -- and if your retaliee loses, the remaining contestants have way more money than you. Caring about how much money is in your hand also hurts your chances of winning because you become less likely to buy the sabotage.
Bidding strategy is also interesting.