We recently received this bleg request from Alon Nir, a regular reader who has contributed to this blog before. He is a young Israeli with a bachelor’s degree in economics and business management who is getting started in the Israeli start-up industry.
With this request, he is following firmly in the footsteps of economists who see treasure in reality/game shows. See if you can help him out, and feel free to send your own bleg requests here.
About a week or so ago I caught a rerun of a Beauty and the Geek [episode] in which Dubner appeared. There was something in Mr. Freakonomics’s appearance on the show that sparked the economist in me. I started pondering the best strategy to play the game and wondered if there’s a game-theory solution for this problem. Soon it dawned on me that this is a thesis- or perhaps a Ph.D.-level question.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the show, I’ll present the concept and the rules briefly. Eight nerdy guys and 8 beautiful gals are paired together. In each episode the couples compete in two challenges. The couple that wins a challenge is safe from elimination and also has to choose which of the other couples should go to the elimination room. Two couples compete head-to-head in the elimination room; one couple prevails and returns to the game, whilst the other goes home.
[Those are] the rules, now here’s the problem: if you’re one of the couples and you win a challenge, which couple should you send to the elimination room?
I’ve spent some time over the weekend thinking about what is the least complicated way to depict this problem in game theory terms. Believe it or not, the following is actually the best I could do:
For starters, let us assume that the couples’ competences aren’t distributed evenly. Three of the couples are considered “weak” contenders, and they are the least likely to win a challenge/elimination round. Next, there are two couples of medium strengths which are twice more likely to win a challenge than the weak couples; and finally there are three “strong” couples which are twice more able than the medium couples, and hence 4 times more able than the weak couples.
Furthermore, let’s say you’re one of the medium strength couples and the other couple of medium strength was eliminated during the previous episode. (So other than you there are three strong couples and three weak couples still in the game.) Next, let’s assume you have won both challenges during the show and you must decide which two couples to send to the elimination room. (This assumption makes the problem a whole lot simpler; I’ll get back to it later.) Keep in mind that the couple that returns from the elimination room will seek revenge, and if they win a challenge the next week, you will definitely be sent to the elimination room (unless you win the other challenge and get immunity).
Now you have to choose which couples to send to the elimination room. There are three possible combinations:
1) One strong, one weak couple: If the weak couple eliminated the strong one, than you’re twice better off, since one strong couple (which is a bigger threat to you) is out of the game, and the couple that returns and seeks revenge on you is weak and not very likely to be in a position to punish you for sending them to elimination. However, this is the less likely scenario.
It is more likely that the strong couple will prevail; then not only will there be one more strong couple in the competition for the prize money, there’s going to be one angry strong couple that is likely to win a challenge and send you to elimination in the next episode.
2) Two weak couples: On the one hand, the couple that will return from the elimination room will seek revenge, but will be less likely to be able to achieve it. On the other hand, you’re left either way with more strong couples in the game, which diminishes your chances of winning.
3) Two strong couples: One strong couple will be out of the game, which is a good thing of course. Then again, one strong couple will want to get back at you and is very likely to win a challenge in the next episode. (That couple is even more likely to win the challenge now that there’s one less strong couple in the game.)
So what would you choose?
In case this problem is too easy for you, it’s fairly easy to make it a lot more complex. Let’s waive the assumption we made earlier and say that you won only one challenge and another couple won the other. Now you have to pick one couple to send to the elimination room, while trying to predict what the other couple will do. Now this is an interesting interaction in game theory regards.
Still not complicated enough for you? Well I also used an implicit assumption that the problem spreads only across two periods; so if a couple that seeks revenge on you doesn’t get it in the next episode, you’re safe. Well, you can waive that assumption as well and say that when you send a couple to the elimination room, they will hold a grudge against you until the end of the game. There. Complicated enough?
As you can see, in game theory terms this is a very complex problem. Of course I don’t expect anyone to find a Nash equilibrium, but I would still love to read your thoughts on this problem.
It’s been a pleasure writing a guest post for the Freakonomics blog.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Some thoughts….
To win it all, you obviously must somehow overcome the teams that are most likely to challenge/defeat you. There is no way to account for luck, etc., that might cause a weaker team to prevail over you.
So, here’s the deal. With every choice, it seems to me, you must seek to take out the strong. Send Strong-Strong teams to elimination if given the opportunity.
To send them invites revenge. But to NOT send them is to invite ulimate defeat. (Of course, in this situation, I would talk with the other weaker teams and try to get them all on the same page so that the strong teams are eliminating each other and, hopefully, weakening because of the effort.)
In other words, for you to win, the strong must go…so you simply have to keep gunning for them. Almost like a number game–sooner or later the odds might be on your side.
Send two strong couples, one will be eliminated. You will have to deal with strong couples anyway since they will seek to eliminate their own and then you in the middle as they view the threats in descending order. A strong couple is a strong couple whether they seek revenge or not and eventually you will be in their sights so get rid of as many of them as you can.
how many times am i gonna see a reality show where a contestant forgoes taking out the strongest competitor, and then, shockingly, they end up losing?- my philosophy is go for the jugular- always try to eliminate the strongest competitor- what’s Nash got to say bout dat?
Having watched every “Beauty and the Geek” episode ever, I feel qualified to point out that the show introduces new twists and new rules several times an episode. (Like a card trick, it’s giving the audience the illusion that everything that happens is by chance, but these new and exciting twists are introduced to ensure certain outcomes.)
So, the best strategy is to make sure you’re a contestant that the producers are going to want to keep around — you’re either really funny, really sweet, or you bring a certain amount of drama to the show.
I’d like to address the more complex issue of winning only one challenge. This changes my chances of being on the receiving end of this revenge (only possibly if the team I select wins).
If the elimination is strong v. strong, my probability of receiving revenge is .5
If the elimination is strong v. weak and I selected the strong team, my probability is .75
If the elimination is strong v. weak and I selected the weak team, my probability is .25
If the elimination is weak v. weak, my probability is .5
I think the Nash equilibrium is for weak teams to be selected. This limits the probability of revenge for the selecting team. The most desirable option for the selecting team is to select a weak team and have them face a strong team.
As so often happens in game theory, the Nash results in a suboptimal outcome. Guaranteed elimination of a weak team increases your probability of facing elimination in the next round regardless of revenge prospects. The optimal choice (not the Nash choice) is for both teams to force strong teams into the elimination round. The probability of revenge is the same, but teams benefit by eliminating a stronger team rather than a weaker team. However, if the decreased probability of revenge success from a weak team outweighs the probability of the strong team to add your team to elimination, then you have much bigger issues.
So, people here watch “Beauty and the Geek”?
Hmmm, interesting take on the issue…but shouldn’t you be on the show?
put the 2nd and 3rd strongest competitors in the elimination room. based on my feeling of the expected values of the results.
in early rounds i would say keep the strongest team because everyone else will go after the best team and you want them not to target you.