![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Friend or Foe?
Jan. 15th, 2003 05:46 pmGoing home for the holidays can result in some surprises and a lot of goof-off time. The surprises this year was all the things changing around my hometown - Bel Air and Forest Hill are being more deeply immersed in suburban sprawl as time goes by. Areas that were empty fields/forests (or farming country) are being filled with homes and shopping centers. It's a bit saddening.
But the goof-off time had a surprise as well. My grandma was visiting the house for a few days, and she tended to have the game show channel on when she was watching TV. And there I saw an interesting show called 'Friend or Foe'.
The basic idea of ForF was that instead of having three contestants, there were three teams of two contestants vying for money. Each team would work together to get as many questions right (and thus as much money as they could) until the next break, when the team with the lowest amount of money earned would go to a unique little faceoff.
Each team member had a hidden area where he could push one of two buttons, 'Friend' or 'Foe'. If both members choose 'Friend', then they would split the prize money. If one chose 'Friend' and the other 'Foe', then the 'Friend' would get nothing, and 'Foe' would get the whole purse. If they both chose 'Foe', then neither would get any money at all.
It's a classic problem of Game Theory, IIRC. If you look at the problem as if the other person was choosing randomly, then the best choice is 'Foe' - if you choose 'Friend' you have a 50% chance of getting half the money, if you choose 'Foe' you have a 50% chance of getting all the money.
However, that just means that your opponent is just as likely to choose 'Foe' as you - so you're almost guarenteed not to get anything. The best outcome is gained by convincing your opponent to choose 'Friend'... and on the show, your opponent is someone you've never met before.
I found it an interesting concept for a show.
But the goof-off time had a surprise as well. My grandma was visiting the house for a few days, and she tended to have the game show channel on when she was watching TV. And there I saw an interesting show called 'Friend or Foe'.
The basic idea of ForF was that instead of having three contestants, there were three teams of two contestants vying for money. Each team would work together to get as many questions right (and thus as much money as they could) until the next break, when the team with the lowest amount of money earned would go to a unique little faceoff.
Each team member had a hidden area where he could push one of two buttons, 'Friend' or 'Foe'. If both members choose 'Friend', then they would split the prize money. If one chose 'Friend' and the other 'Foe', then the 'Friend' would get nothing, and 'Foe' would get the whole purse. If they both chose 'Foe', then neither would get any money at all.
It's a classic problem of Game Theory, IIRC. If you look at the problem as if the other person was choosing randomly, then the best choice is 'Foe' - if you choose 'Friend' you have a 50% chance of getting half the money, if you choose 'Foe' you have a 50% chance of getting all the money.
However, that just means that your opponent is just as likely to choose 'Foe' as you - so you're almost guarenteed not to get anything. The best outcome is gained by convincing your opponent to choose 'Friend'... and on the show, your opponent is someone you've never met before.
I found it an interesting concept for a show.
