IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v302y2022i3p1272-1281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal strategies in the fighting fantasy gaming system: Influencing stochastic dynamics by gambling with limited resource

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Iain G.

Abstract

In many games and other processes, participants can choose to intervene in some way that does not follow the usual progress of the game (for example, cheating at cards, or spying on rivals) which may provide benefits, but also possibly incur substantial costs. Here, repeated interventions may be more likely to incur negative outcomes – for example, as the chance of getting caught increases. How to optimally employ these risky interventions, trading off potential advantages and disadvantages, can then be challenging to identify. Here, we study such a game, taken from the popular ‘Fighting Fantasy’ gamebook series. This stochastic game involves a series of rounds, each of which may be won or lost. Each round, a unit of limited resource (‘luck’) may be spent on a gamble to amplify benefits from a win or to mitigate deficits from a loss. However, the success of this gamble depends on the number of units of remaining resource, and if the gamble is unsuccessful, benefits are reduced and deficits increased. By choosing to expending resource, a player thus has diminishing probability of positive return, as in the cheating and espionage examples above. We characterise the dynamics of this system using stochastic analysis and dynamic programming, solve the Bellman equation for the complete system with diminishing returns, and identify the optimal strategy for any given state during the game. We use classification tools to distil general principles for this and related problems, informing resource allocation problems with diminishing returns in stochastic decision theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Iain G., 2022. "Optimal strategies in the fighting fantasy gaming system: Influencing stochastic dynamics by gambling with limited resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(3), pages 1272-1281.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:302:y:2022:i:3:p:1272-1281
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221722000777
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, David K., 2007. "Dynamic programming and board games: A survey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1299-1318, February.
    2. Deutsch, Yael & Golany, Boaz & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2011. "Determining all Nash equilibria in a (bi-linear) inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 422-430, December.
    3. Golany, Boaz & Kaplan, Edward H. & Marmur, Abraham & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2009. "Nature plays with dice - terrorists do not: Allocating resources to counter strategic versus probabilistic risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 198-208, January.
    4. B. Golany & N. Goldberg & U. Rothblum, 2015. "Allocating multiple defensive resources in a zero-sum game setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 91-109, February.
    5. Wallace J. Hopp, 1987. "A Sequential Model of R&D Investment Over an Unbounded Time Horizon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 500-508, April.
    6. Pelin G. Canbolat & Boaz Golany & Inbal Mund & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2012. "A Stochastic Competitive R&D Race Where “Winner Takes All”," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 700-715, June.
    7. John D. C. Little & Katta G. Murty & Dura W. Sweeney & Caroline Karel, 1963. "An Algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 972-989, December.
    8. Solan, Eilon & Yariv, Leeat, 2004. "Games with espionage," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 172-199, April.
    9. Michael A. Trick, 2001. "Building a Better Game through Dynamic Programming: A Flip Analysis," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 50-58, September.
    10. L C Thomas, 2003. "The best banking strategy when playing The Weakest Link," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 747-750, July.
    11. David Frank Percy, 2015. "Strategy selection and outcome prediction in sport using dynamic learning for stochastic processes," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(11), pages 1840-1849, November.
    12. S R Clarke & J M Norman, 2003. "Dynamic programming in cricket: choosing a night watchman," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(8), pages 838-845, August.
    13. Elizabeth Gibney, 2016. "Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7587), pages 445-446, January.
    14. Deutsch, Yael, 2021. "A polynomial-time method to compute all Nash equilibria solutions of a general two-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1036-1052.
    15. Robert W. Blanning, 1981. "Variable-Base Budgeting for R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 547-558, May.
    16. Perea, Federico & Puerto, Justo, 2007. "Dynamic programming analysis of the TV game "Who wants to be a millionaire?"," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(2), pages 805-811, December.
    17. Baye, Michael R. & Hoppe, Heidrun C., 2003. "The strategic equivalence of rent-seeking, innovation, and patent-race games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 217-226, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, David K., 2007. "Dynamic programming and board games: A survey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1299-1318, February.
    2. Pelin G. Canbolat & Boaz Golany & Inbal Mund & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2012. "A Stochastic Competitive R&D Race Where “Winner Takes All”," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 700-715, June.
    3. Perea, Federico & Puerto, Justo, 2007. "Dynamic programming analysis of the TV game "Who wants to be a millionaire?"," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(2), pages 805-811, December.
    4. B. Golany & N. Goldberg & U. Rothblum, 2015. "Allocating multiple defensive resources in a zero-sum game setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 91-109, February.
    5. Paulson, Elisabeth C. & Linkov, Igor & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2016. "A game theoretic model for resource allocation among countermeasures with multiple attributes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(2), pages 610-622.
    6. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    7. Mahajan, Aseem & Pongou, Roland & Tondji, Jean-Baptiste, 2023. "Supermajority politics: Equilibrium range, policy diversity, utilitarian welfare, and political compromise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 963-974.
    8. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    9. Han, Lin & Zhao, Xudong & Chen, Zhilong & Gong, Huadong & Hou, Benwei, 2021. "Assessing resilience of urban lifeline networks to intentional attacks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    10. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    11. Sushil Gupta & Martin K. Starr & Reza Zanjirani Farahani & Mahsa Mahboob Ghodsi, 2020. "Prevention of Terrorism–An Assessment of Prior POM Work and Future Potentials," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1789-1815, July.
    12. Scott A. Shane & Karl T. Ulrich, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 133-144, February.
    13. Shirley Ho, 2007. "An Economic Analysis Of Military Intelligence," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 485-493.
    14. Einy, E & Haimanko, O & Moreno, D & Sela, A & Shitovitz, B, 2013. "Tullock Contests with Asymmetric Information," Discussion Papers 2013-11, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    15. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2017. "Balance of power and the propensity of conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 168-184.
    16. Kräkel, Matthias & Szech, Nora & von Bieberstein, Frauke, 2014. "Externalities in recruiting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 123-135.
    17. David Simchi-Levi & Nikolaos Trichakis & Peter Yun Zhang, 2019. "Designing Response Supply Chain Against Bioattacks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1246-1268, September.
    18. Jia, Hao & Skaperdas, Stergios & Vaidya, Samarth, 2013. "Contest functions: Theoretical foundations and issues in estimation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-222.
    19. Ulrich Hendel, 2016. "‘Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t’: mimicking behaviour of growth-oriented terrorist organizations," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 665-687, September.
    20. Subhasish Chowdhury & Roman Sheremeta, 2011. "A generalized Tullock contest," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 413-420, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:302:y:2022:i:3:p:1272-1281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.