Popular vs Valuable

[Galloism]

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not bidding against the same person happens regularly or not?

After all, if it was always random unknown people, $0.01 is probably the most rational, but if it's repeated against known people, bidding $0.01 repeatedly would result in pattern recognition where people would simply bid $0.02 knowing you're going to bid $0.01.

Xero's premise is that you never know anything about the other players; their valuation is 100% unknown every single time you play the game, even against the same people.

Plus winning 1c is still better than bidding your full valuation and winning nothing .


(Another aspect not looked at is to purposefully start a bid even though you agree with the majority opinion. Eg.
Xero: Hey Maqo, do you want to come to the orchid show.
Maqo: Internally: Orchid shows are the best!! But wait! I can extort some money if I make him bid against me
Maqo: Externally How about we go to some economics lessons instead? WTP app?
Xero: Sure! (Bids $35)
Maqo: Hehe. (Bids 1c)
Maqo: Looks like you win Xero! Pay up and lets be on our way.

I can get $35 for lying about what I want to do, even when I don't want to do it.

Similarly for the situation in the OP. Lets say all 10 people want to go to Italian and value it $10 more than Mexican. I can get money out of the other 9 people if I pretend that I want to go to Mexican instead. So I bid 1c against everyone, they bid (honestly) a total of $90 against me. I get free meals for a week and they get $0 of value from going to Mexican.)

Well I know all that, but I was addressing you not Xero. I expect you to have a good grasp on reality and human behavior.

I was merely asking you if the proper bidding technique wouldn't depend on the randomness of the bidding partner.

[Maqo]

Xero's premise is that you never know anything about the other players; their valuation is 100% unknown every single time you play the game, even against the same people.

Plus winning 1c is still better than bidding your full valuation and winning nothing .


(Another aspect not looked at is to purposefully start a bid even though you agree with the majority opinion. Eg.
Xero: Hey Maqo, do you want to come to the orchid show.
Maqo: Internally: Orchid shows are the best!! But wait! I can extort some money if I make him bid against me
Maqo: Externally How about we go to some economics lessons instead? WTP app?
Xero: Sure! (Bids $35)
Maqo: Hehe. (Bids 1c)
Maqo: Looks like you win Xero! Pay up and lets be on our way.

I can get $35 for lying about what I want to do, even when I don't want to do it.

Similarly for the situation in the OP. Lets say all 10 people want to go to Italian and value it $10 more than Mexican. I can get money out of the other 9 people if I pretend that I want to go to Mexican instead. So I bid 1c against everyone, they bid (honestly) a total of $90 against me. I get free meals for a week and they get $0 of value from going to Mexican.)

Well I know all that, but I was addressing you not Xero. I expect you to have a good grasp on reality and human behavior.

I was merely asking you if the proper bidding technique wouldn't depend on the randomness of the bidding partner.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude.
As with most games I expect the iterative outcome to be different to the single-round outcome.
I would think that in the iterative game (with unchanging valuations) the result would converge to exactly the loser's valuation.

[Xerographica]

How much am I willing to pay (WTP) for you to like tax choice on facebook? How much are you willing to accept (WTA) to like tax choice on facebook?

If my WTP is greater than or equal to your WTA... then I should give you the agreed upon amount of money and you should like tax choice on facebook. Right? From my perspective... this concept is obviously correct. Yet, here you are demanding proof from me. So I really don't know what you think is so outrageously crazy about this concept.

If you agree that this concept is obviously correct... then you agree that we should replace voting with spending.

Have you tested this to see if it works as described?

Would you like to test it? I would telegram my WTP to Galloism. You would telegram your WTA to Galloism. Then he would post them both in this thread. If my WTP is greater than or equal to your WTA... then I would paypal you the amount that I said that I was willing to pay... and you would like tax choice on facebook. And, to be clear, you can't immediately unlike it. You have to like it for an entire year.

[Xerographica]

Could've Had A V8

It's already been shown via math that bidding more than half is the way to minimize her profit. Why would Sue choose to minimize her profit?

Here's the scenario again...

Person A and B want to do an activity, but they can't decide on which on.
Person A values activity X at $10 and activity Y at $100
Person B values activity X at $40 and activity Y at $5

Person A = Sue
Person B = Xero
Activity X = going to orchid show
Activity Y = going to bible study

Xero: Next Saturday is the orchid show!
Sue: Oh, it's also my bible study class!
Xero: Oh, you should go to orchid show instead!
Sue: You should go to the bible study class instead!
Xero: Let's arm wrestle?
Sue: Ha, very funny. Let's just use the WTP app.
Xero: Ok

Because Sue and I are both profit maximizers... neither of us wants to make a mistake. Neither one of us wants to *facepalm* ourselves. With this in mind... we both input our linvoids into the app...

Her linvoid: $80 dollars
My linvoid: $35 dollars

She wins...

Her net: $100 dollars - $80 dollars - $10 dollars = $10 dollars
My net: $80 dollars + $5 dollars - $40 dollars = $45 dollars

We both win. Nobody *facepalms*.

Let's say that Sue bid $36 and I bid $35.

She wins...

Her net: $100 - $36 - $10 = $54
My net: $36 + $5 - $40 = $1

We both win. In this scenario... clearly Sue can't possibly know for a fact what I'm going to bid. All she can do is guess. Can her guess be educated and informed? Certainly... but it's still a guess. With this in mind... what would happen if she bid $2 dollars less?

She loses...

Her net: $35 + $10 - $100 = -$55
My net: $40 - $35 - $5 = $0

I didn't win or lose... but she certainly lost quite a bit.

I thought we were supposed to assume rationality.

Trying to maximize profit is certainly rational... but it's also pretty rational to try and avoid losses. Loss aversion is a real thing.

[Xerographica]

Xero: Hey Maqo, do you want to come to the orchid show.
Maqo: Internally: Orchid shows are the best!! But wait! I can extort some money if I make him bid against me
Maqo: Externally How about we go to some economics lessons instead? WTP app?
Xero: Sure! (Bids $35)
Maqo: Hehe. (Bids 1c)
Maqo: Looks like you win Xero! Pay up and lets be on our way.

I can get $35 for lying about what I want to do, even when I don't want to do it.

LOL... I'd bid $35 dollar for the orchid show... because I really can't stand economics? Seriously guy? For me this situation would be the opposite of being between a rock and a hard place. What's the opposite of being between a rock and a hard place? Being between a pillow and a soft place?

What's the opposite of damned if you do and damned if you don't? Happy if you do and happy if you don't?

[Alvecia]

Have you tested this to see if it works as described?

Would you like to test it? I would telegram my WTP to Galloism. You would telegram your WTA to Galloism. Then he would post them both in this thread. If my WTP is greater than or equal to your WTA... then I would paypal you the amount that I said that I was willing to pay... and you would like tax choice on facebook. And, to be clear, you can't immediately unlike it. You have to like it for an entire year.

I suppose in that situation, I'd immediately unlike it and keep your money. This test isn't going to work out like you want it to.
I'd also note that one test is not conclusive. You'd have to do several to make sure it is not anomalous. The more the better.

[Galloism]

It's already been shown via math that bidding more than half is the way to minimize her profit. Why would Sue choose to minimize her profit?

Here's the scenario again...

Person A and B want to do an activity, but they can't decide on which on.
Person A values activity X at $10 and activity Y at $100
Person B values activity X at $40 and activity Y at $5

Person A = Sue
Person B = Xero
Activity X = going to orchid show
Activity Y = going to bible study

Xero: Next Saturday is the orchid show!
Sue: Oh, it's also my bible study class!
Xero: Oh, you should go to orchid show instead!
Sue: You should go to the bible study class instead!
Xero: Let's arm wrestle?
Sue: Ha, very funny. Let's just use the WTP app.
Xero: Ok

Because Sue and I are both profit maximizers... neither of us wants to make a mistake. Neither one of us wants to *facepalm* ourselves. With this in mind... we both input our linvoids into the app...

Her linvoid: $80 dollars
My linvoid: $35 dollars

She wins...

Her net: $100 dollars - $80 dollars - $10 dollars = $10 dollars
My net: $80 dollars + $5 dollars - $40 dollars = $45 dollars

We both win. Nobody *facepalms*.

Let's say that Sue bid $36 and I bid $35.

She wins...

Her net: $100 - $36 - $10 = $54
My net: $36 + $5 - $40 = $1

We both win. In this scenario... clearly Sue can't possibly know for a fact what I'm going to bid. All she can do is guess. Can her guess be educated and informed? Certainly... but it's still a guess. With this in mind... what would happen if she bid $2 dollars less?

She loses...

Her net: $35 + $10 - $100 = -$55
My net: $40 - $35 - $5 = $0

I didn't win or lose... but she certainly lost quite a bit.

I thought we were supposed to assume rationality.

Trying to maximize profit is certainly rational... but it's also pretty rational to try and avoid losses. Loss aversion is a real thing.

"Not making money" is not a "loss" in the same way that "not getting a blowjob" isn't "pain". Your math is incorrect. Let's try this gain. Using your scenario, and I'm only going to use Sue's side because she can't know your valuation.

Person A values activity X at $10 and activity Y at $100

...

Person A = Sue
Person B = Xero
Activity X = going to orchid show
Activity Y = going to bible study

So sue's net value of choice is $90. Sue bids $45. Xero bids A, where A is any positive number except infinity.

What bid amount makes sue lose money compared to $45? Literally pick any positive number except infinity.

If sue wins at $45, she receives:

$100 - $45 = $55

If sue loses at $45, she receives:

$10 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Minimum value received, $56 (assuming $1 increments).

Define a value of $A where sue makes less money at $45 compared with $80.

[Xerographica]

"Not making money" is not a "loss" in the same way that "not getting a blowjob" isn't "pain". Your math is incorrect.

So opportunity cost (oc) isn't a real cost?

Let's say that JC (Jennifer Connelly) hits on me at a bar. I'd sure like to have sex with her... but I also don't want my gf to dump me. The oc of sleeping with JC is losing my gf. And the oc of keeping my gf is not sleeping with JC.

The oc would be a real cost. Turning down the opportunity to sleep with JC would be really painful. Losing my gf would be even more painful.

Your economics is incorrect.

[Galloism]

"Not making money" is not a "loss" in the same way that "not getting a blowjob" isn't "pain". Your math is incorrect.

So opportunity cost (oc) isn't a real cost?

Let's say that JC (Jennifer Connelly) hits on me at a bar. I'd sure like to have sex with her... but I also don't want my gf to dump me. The oc of sleeping with JC is losing my gf. And the oc of keeping my gf is not sleeping with JC.

The oc would be a real cost. Turning down the opportunity to sleep with JC would be really painful. Losing my gf would be even more painful.

Your economics is incorrect.

Opportunity cost is only a cost if you recognize the value of the opportunity in the first place. Therefore, instead of this:

If sue wins at $45, she receives:

$100 - $45 = $55

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $10 - $45 = $55

Where the value of the options is designated (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up is recognized (-10)
The value of money given up is recognized (-45)

She profits $55.

And instead of this:

If sue loses at $45, she receives:

$10 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Minimum value received, $56 (assuming $1 increments).

Define a value of $A where sue makes less money at $45 compared with $80.

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $100 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Cancellation lands you at $10 + $A.

Where the value of both options (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up (-100)
And adding the value of cash received ($A)

Otherwise, you have just asserted that taking the $100 adds $100, while not taking the $100 subtracts $100.

You have asserted that $100 = $100 - (-$100)
Therefore: $100 = $200


Yeah, math, accounting, taxes, economics, NOTHING works that way. Literally cannot be anything besides false. Mathematically, provably false.

Edit: interestingly, the only way Xero can make an $80 bid make sense is by doubling the value of the choice (from $90 to $180, the difference between (100-10 = 90) and (10-100= -90)), which then makes $80 very close to half the value difference.

Which backs up what I've been saying.

[Chestaan]

Has anyone solved the game yet? I could possibly do it but I'm quite lazy and really rather would not

[Xerographica]

Would you like to test it? I would telegram my WTP to Galloism. You would telegram your WTA to Galloism. Then he would post them both in this thread. If my WTP is greater than or equal to your WTA... then I would paypal you the amount that I said that I was willing to pay... and you would like tax choice on facebook. And, to be clear, you can't immediately unlike it. You have to like it for an entire year.

I suppose in that situation, I'd immediately unlike it and keep your money. This test isn't going to work out like you want it to.
I'd also note that one test is not conclusive. You'd have to do several to make sure it is not anomalous. The more the better.

I explicitly noted that part of the deal is that you wouldn't unlike it for at least a year. Clearly I wouldn't be able to prevent you from immediately unliking it. But if you did blatantly disregard the terms of our deal... this would definitely diminish other people's willingness to trade with you.

It's pretty amazing that you think there's anything really special about this trade. The only thing that's different about this type of trade is the process by which we determine the price. The usual method would probably involve some type of negotiation...

Xero: Hey Alvecia! You should like tax choice on facebook!
Alvecia: No way! I'm not a big fan of the concept!
Xero: What if I pay you a penny?
Alvecia: No deal!
Xero: What if I pay you a nickle?
Alvecia: Sure!
Xero: What if I pay you four pennies?
Alvecia: Well... I suppose.
Xero: Deal!

We groped around in the dark and managed to find a price that would be mutually beneficial. I'm hoping that you don't find anything too controversial about this system of determining the price.

The system that I proposed wouldn't involve any groping around in the dark. We would be making the same exact trade... but we would determine the price by each having one opportunity to reveal our preferred price. If my preferred price is higher than your preferred price... then I pay you my preferred price. The more honest we both are... the greater the chances that a mutually beneficial trade will take place.

[Galloism]

The more honest we both are... the greater the chances that a mutually beneficial trade will take place.

Stop making claims which are proven mathematically false.

[Maqo]

We groped around in the dark and managed to find a price that would be mutually beneficial. I'm hoping that you don't find anything too controversial about this system of determining the price.

That seems more like 'homing in on the right solution' than 'groping around in the dark'. Every time someone offers a new price they're getting closer to success.

The system that I proposed wouldn't involve any groping around in the dark. We would be making the same exact trade... but we would determine the price by each having one opportunity to reveal our preferred price. If my preferred price is higher than your preferred price... then I pay you my preferred price. The more honest we both are... the greater the chances that a mutually beneficial trade will take place.

Why leave it up to chance? The first solution always finds a mutually beneficial solution if one exists, and doesn't have a chance of failure. Its a little more interesting as game theory, but putting it in to practice means you have to artificially constrain yourself to a single round which is pointless in reality.

I don't think anyone is really disputing that, if both bid honestly, a mutually beneficial trade will be found if one exists (well, its minimally beneficial to the winner). We are disputing that bidding honestly is a dominant strategy.

But then again, the above is the (boring) 'problem' of people selling shit to each other. Pretty sure we've solved it by now.

The a bigger 'problem' is the situation in the OP. Which still doesn't result in the 'bid honestly' strategy, but at least it's interesting.

[Xerographica]

Why leave it up to chance? The first solution always finds a mutually beneficial solution if one exists, and doesn't have a chance of failure. Its a little more interesting as game theory, but putting it in to practice means you have to artificially constrain yourself to a single round which is pointless in reality.

I don't think anyone is really disputing that, if both bid honestly, a mutually beneficial trade will be found if one exists (well, its minimally beneficial to the winner). We are disputing that bidding honestly is a dominant strategy.

But then again, the above is the (boring) 'problem' of people selling shit to each other. Pretty sure we've solved it by now.

The a bigger 'problem' is the situation in the OP. Which still doesn't result in the 'bid honestly' strategy, but at least it's interesting.

For me it's a given that it would far more mutually beneficial to replace voting with spending. But for most other people, including yourself, the benefit of a (decision) market is not a given. Which means that you don't really understand how or why trade is beneficial. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely that "we've" truly solved the "boring" "problem" of people selling shit to each other.

I'm pretty sure that trading is less about getting and more about communicating.

That seems more like 'homing in on the right solution' than 'groping around in the dark'. Every time someone offers a new price they're getting closer to success.

"Homing in on the right solution"? Kinda like playing 20 questions? If trading is truly more about communication... then the goal should always be to improve the efficiency and accuracy of communication.

Profit is certainly desirable... but never when it decreases the accuracy of communication. Free-riding is certainly profitable... but only in the short run. In the long run, we are all hurt when things are undersupplied because of inaccurate communication. This is of course the problem with voting...

Governments deliver what people pretend to want. Free markets deliver what they actually want. - Bryan Caplan, Get a Compound

Getting more of what we pretend to want means getting less of what we actually want. With Buchanan's Rule in mind... it should be painfully obvious that voting breaks Quiggin's Rule.

Today I watched this excellent video on Youtube... Human Cognitive Evolution: How the Modern Mind Came into Being - Merlin Donald. He argues that humans form a distributed network. Our brains aren't literally linked together though. So in order for the network to process information... we each need to share our individual information. If we share inaccurate information, then the output will be inaccurate. This is the basic concept of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).

Everybody would benefit from a network that's...

1. larger
2. more accurate
3. more efficient

"Homing in on the right solution" is inefficient and it's also inaccurate. It takes too long to access information that most likely doesn't come very close to people's valuations. Democracy is certainly efficient... but it's far less accurate than homing. Representation is a small, inefficient and inaccurate network. Removing any amount of brains from the network is extremely stupid. This is why slavery is also stupid. Unfortunately, this is not why we oppose slavery. We oppose slavery for moral reasons. In other words, we oppose slavery for the wrong reasons.

You're bored with the scenario of people selling shit to each other. You're more interested in the scenario of replacing voting with spending. From my perspective your interest is incoherent. This is because, from my perspective, both scenarios address the issue of improving the efficiency and accuracy of communication.

So I think that your incoherence stems from your failure to perceive commerce as communication. What we consume depends entirely on how and what we communicate to each other. Your analysis will become far more coherent if you manage to focus on the communication aspect.

[Alvecia]

I suppose in that situation, I'd immediately unlike it and keep your money. This test isn't going to work out like you want it to.
I'd also note that one test is not conclusive. You'd have to do several to make sure it is not anomalous. The more the better.

I explicitly noted that part of the deal is that you wouldn't unlike it for at least a year. Clearly I wouldn't be able to prevent you from immediately unliking it. But if you did blatantly disregard the terms of our deal... this would definitely diminish other people's willingness to trade with you.

Well at least you're acknowledging issues with your system now.

[Xerographica]

I explicitly noted that part of the deal is that you wouldn't unlike it for at least a year. Clearly I wouldn't be able to prevent you from immediately unliking it. But if you did blatantly disregard the terms of our deal... this would definitely diminish other people's willingness to trade with you.

Well at least you're acknowledging issues with your system now.

That's not just an issue with my system... it's an issue with all trading systems.

[Alvecia]

Well at least you're acknowledging issues with your system now.

That's not just an issue with my system... it's an issue with all trading systems.

There's a system that's around in places now that isn't a trading system and doesn't have such issues.
Can't recall what it's called.

[Galloism]

Why I do believe I have found xerographica's Kryptonite.

Grade school math.

So opportunity cost (oc) isn't a real cost?

Let's say that JC (Jennifer Connelly) hits on me at a bar. I'd sure like to have sex with her... but I also don't want my gf to dump me. The oc of sleeping with JC is losing my gf. And the oc of keeping my gf is not sleeping with JC.

The oc would be a real cost. Turning down the opportunity to sleep with JC would be really painful. Losing my gf would be even more painful.

Your economics is incorrect.

Opportunity cost is only a cost if you recognize the value of the opportunity in the first place. Therefore, instead of this:

If sue wins at $45, she receives:

$100 - $45 = $55

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $10 - $45 = $55

Where the value of the options is designated (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up is recognized (-10)
The value of money given up is recognized (-45)

She profits $55.

And instead of this:

If sue loses at $45, she receives:

$10 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Minimum value received, $56 (assuming $1 increments).

Define a value of $A where sue makes less money at $45 compared with $80.

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $100 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Cancellation lands you at $10 + $A.

Where the value of both options (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up (-100)
And adding the value of cash received ($A)

Otherwise, you have just asserted that taking the $100 adds $100, while not taking the $100 subtracts $100.

You have asserted that $100 = $100 - (-$100)
Therefore: $100 = $200


Yeah, math, accounting, taxes, economics, NOTHING works that way. Literally cannot be anything besides false. Mathematically, provably false.

Edit: interestingly, the only way Xero can make an $80 bid make sense is by doubling the value of the choice (from $90 to $180, the difference between (100-10 = 90) and (10-100= -90)), which then makes $80 very close to half the value difference.

Which backs up what I've been saying.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Okay, I have to ask honestly on this one, and this is not trolling. Are you high?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I suppose in that situation, I'd immediately unlike it and keep your money. This test isn't going to work out like you want it to.
I'd also note that one test is not conclusive. You'd have to do several to make sure it is not anomalous. The more the better.

I explicitly noted that part of the deal is that you wouldn't unlike it for at least a year. Clearly I wouldn't be able to prevent you from immediately unliking it. But if you did blatantly disregard the terms of our deal... this would definitely diminish other people's willingness to trade with you.

It's pretty amazing that you think there's anything really special about this trade. The only thing that's different about this type of trade is the process by which we determine the price. The usual method would probably involve some type of negotiation...

Xero: Hey Alvecia! You should like tax choice on facebook!
Alvecia: No way! I'm not a big fan of the concept!
Xero: What if I pay you a penny?
Alvecia: No deal!
Xero: What if I pay you a nickle?
Alvecia: Sure!
Xero: What if I pay you four pennies?
Alvecia: Well... I suppose.
Xero: Deal!

We groped around in the dark and managed to find a price that would be mutually beneficial. I'm hoping that you don't find anything too controversial about this system of determining the price.

The system that I proposed wouldn't involve any groping around in the dark. We would be making the same exact trade... but we would determine the price by each having one opportunity to reveal our preferred price. If my preferred price is higher than your preferred price... then I pay you my preferred price. The more honest we both are... the greater the chances that a mutually beneficial trade will take place.

I'd have told you "fuck. no."

Seriously, it's almost like you have never bargained.

[Xerographica]

Why I do believe I have found xerographica's Kryptonite.

Grade school math.

Who do you support for president? Clinton? Sanders? I'm guessing that you like at least one of them on facebook? I sure don't like either of them on facebook.

My preference is for you to like tax choice on facebook
Your preference is for me to like your preferred candidate

So let's whip out our WTPs. We'll both telegram our WTPs to Alvecia. Once we have both done so, then he'll post the results and we will abide by them. The loser will have to like the winner's political preference for at least one year. But, the loser will receive the winner's WTP.

If you're so certain that I fail to understand grade school math... then you'll jump at this opportunity. If you don't jump at this opportunity then, as usual, you're simply serving all of us loads of malarkey.

[Galloism]

Why I do believe I have found xerographica's Kryptonite.

Grade school math.

Who do you support for president? Clinton? Sanders? I'm guessing that you like at least one of them on facebook? I sure don't like either of them on facebook.

My preference is for you to like tax choice on facebook
Your preference is for me to like your preferred candidate

So let's whip out our WTPs. We'll both telegram our WTPs to Alvecia. Once we have both done so, then he'll post the results and we will abide by them. The loser will have to like the winner's political preference for at least one year. But, the loser will receive the winner's WTP.

If you're so certain that I fail to understand grade school math... then you'll jump at this opportunity. If you don't jump at this opportunity then, as usual, you're simply serving all of us loads of malarkey.

Doesn't matter. Address the problems in your model. Mathematics dictates that any bid greater than half of true value is irrational.

So opportunity cost (oc) isn't a real cost?

Let's say that JC (Jennifer Connelly) hits on me at a bar. I'd sure like to have sex with her... but I also don't want my gf to dump me. The oc of sleeping with JC is losing my gf. And the oc of keeping my gf is not sleeping with JC.

The oc would be a real cost. Turning down the opportunity to sleep with JC would be really painful. Losing my gf would be even more painful.

Your economics is incorrect.

Opportunity cost is only a cost if you recognize the value of the opportunity in the first place. Therefore, instead of this:

If sue wins at $45, she receives:

$100 - $45 = $55

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $10 - $45 = $55

Where the value of the options is designated (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up is recognized (-10)
The value of money given up is recognized (-45)

She profits $55.

And instead of this:

If sue loses at $45, she receives:

$10 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Minimum value received, $56 (assuming $1 increments).

Define a value of $A where sue makes less money at $45 compared with $80.

You would get this:

$100 + $10 - $100 + $A, where $A is greater than $45. Cancellation lands you at $10 + $A.

Where the value of both options (100 + 10)
The value of what was given up (-100)
And adding the value of cash received ($A)

Otherwise, you have just asserted that taking the $100 adds $100, while not taking the $100 subtracts $100.

You have asserted that $100 = $100 - (-$100)
Therefore: $100 = $200


Yeah, math, accounting, taxes, economics, NOTHING works that way. Literally cannot be anything besides false. Mathematically, provably false.

Edit: interestingly, the only way Xero can make an $80 bid make sense is by doubling the value of the choice (from $90 to $180, the difference between (100-10 = 90) and (10-100= -90)), which then makes $80 very close to half the value difference.

Which backs up what I've been saying.

Find me a value, in the circumstances provided, where bidding more than $45 results in greater profit for sue, either as a winner or a loser.

Edit: And, incidentally, I value your individual support at smaller than $0.01, and value liking your tax choice at about negative $500. Why would I play? I only stand to lose.

The only winning move is not to play.

[Xerographica]

Who do you support for president? Clinton? Sanders? I'm guessing that you like at least one of them on facebook? I sure don't like either of them on facebook.

My preference is for you to like tax choice on facebook
Your preference is for me to like your preferred candidate

So let's whip out our WTPs. We'll both telegram our WTPs to Alvecia. Once we have both done so, then he'll post the results and we will abide by them. The loser will have to like the winner's political preference for at least one year. But, the loser will receive the winner's WTP.

If you're so certain that I fail to understand grade school math... then you'll jump at this opportunity. If you don't jump at this opportunity then, as usual, you're simply serving all of us loads of malarkey.

Doesn't matter. Address the problems in your model. Mathematics dictates that any bid greater than half of true value is irrational.

I'm not at all surprised that you were not willing to put your money where your mouth is. In this facebook scenario... sure I'd like to win. But I'd hate to lose. I abhor the idea of one person making decisions for 10 people... let alone 300 million people. My bid would reflect the reality of my preferences. Your math completely fails to account for the reality of people's preferences.

[Galloism]

Doesn't matter. Address the problems in your model. Mathematics dictates that any bid greater than half of true value is irrational.

I'm not at all surprised that you were not willing to put your money where your mouth is. In this facebook scenario... sure I'd like to win. But I'd hate to lose. I abhor the idea of one person making decisions for 10 people... let alone 300 million people. My bid would reflect the reality of my preferences. Your math completely fails to account for the reality of people's preferences.

Address the math.

What value gives Sue a better profit than $45, either winning or losing?

I can fully believe you would bid irrationally. Why would sue bid irrationally?

And, since I value your support at less than one penny, and value liking your stupid ass counter factual mathematically absurd plan at negative $500, there's no reason for me to engage.

The only winning move is not to play.

[Xerographica]

Edit: And, incidentally, I value your individual support at smaller than $0.01, and value liking your tax choice at about negative $500. Why would I play? I only stand to lose.

You say that you value tax choice at negative $500 dollars. And you think people believe you? LOL. Everybody intuitively understands that talk is cheap.