Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
User avatar
Longstride
Lulu
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:32 pm

Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Longstride » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:02 am

DISCLAIMER: Let me start off that I understand the disadvantages of this proposition and am in NO WAY/SHAPE/FORM advocating its usage at all, ever, period; but I've had this idea for a while and just thought it'd be an interesting concept. Consider this post just a fantasy-expression of a quirky possibility that should never actually be used.
---------------------

Power sets usually allow for players to get an extra 5 (or at NSC 10, or at NHB possibly 20) points for buzzing in particularly early on a question. What if, for a moment, we supposed to reverse this. That a player would get extra points for buzzing in later on in a question.

Consider: In a power-marked set, there are coinciding advantages for a player to buzz in early (they get points, they get more points for the early buzz, and they prevent the other team from getting points.) However, if a set were to be reversed-powered, every buzz would require utilitarian calculations of payoff. Buzzing in early has the advantage of preventing another team from acquiring points but at the expense of sacrificing extra points you may earn yourself. In such a fashion, every question becomes a calculation by a player on how much knowledge the opposing side has regarding a question and therefore how late a successful buzz can be achieved.

Clearly, this proposition would have downsides (the bottom brackets would have outrageously high-scoring games), but I'm curious as to what someone else thinks of this. What would a top-tier National game look like with such an interesting proposition. Would Quizbowlers, the notoriously impatient and trigger-happy creatures we are, ignore the possibility for more points and buzz in anyway, or would there be an added layer of tactical strategy to the game as the stakes rise the longer the question runs for?
Venu Katta
Clover Hill High School '13
College of William & Mary '17

"Having hit a wall, the next logical step is to not bang our heads against it." - Stephen Harper

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:08 am

There would be more buzzer races and games would be decided more by chance than by knowledge.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6621
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Cheynem » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:11 am

Nobody would wait if they knew it, especially if there are bonuses. Losing 30 extra points to gain 5 more is a terrible proposition. You'd have to make the power mark much higher.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
pajaro bobo
Wakka
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:12 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by pajaro bobo » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:28 am

I don't really see how turning quizbowl into a game of academic chicken allows for more "tactics".
Alex Liu
Georgia Tech '1X
Chattahoochee '13

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:15 pm

This might also result in people playing packets online to make themselves appear stupider than they actually are, instead of better than they actually are, out of some hope that opponents would then underestimate them.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Yuna
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Benin Rebirth Party » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:53 pm

Five extra points isn't enough to warrant buzzing after you know the answer.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15276
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by AKKOLADE » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

This could be an interesting wacky side/online event with only tossups, but that's about the extent to which it would go.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:22 pm

Grams's Go-Go Boots wrote:This could be an interesting wacky side/online event with only tossups, but that's about the extent to which it would go.
A much better use of resources on wacky rules would be an academic tournament with Ann B. Davis-style rules. That would actually be fun and reward people for both knowing things and being clever with tactics.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

Kyle
Auron
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Ifrane, Morocco / Oxford, UK / Issaquah, WA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Kyle » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:50 pm

You can get a similar effect to this if you play with poker chips and pause periodically in the question to place bets on whether you will be the first person to answer correctly, since it's better to buzz in after people have bet than when only the antes are in the pot. Actually, this is the chief problem hindering the widespread acceptance of the GambleQuiz format.
Kyle Haddad-Fonda
Harvard '09
Oxford '13

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Deviant Insider » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:07 pm

If you want fun quizbowl, I'll show you fun quizbowl.
David Reinstein
PACE VP of Outreach, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT (2011-2017), IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), PACE Member, PACE President (2016-2018), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)

User avatar
Habitat_Against_Humanity
Rikku
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:51 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Habitat_Against_Humanity » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:48 pm

When can we have a "Designate Bowl" revival?
Nolan -
UChicago 09
Michigan State Well-wisher

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1947
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by the return of AHAN » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:11 pm

Skepticism and Animal Feed wrote:There would be more buzzer races and games would be decided more by chance than by knowledge.
(Insert IESA Middle School State Series joke here)
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
i never see pigeons in wheeling
Rikku
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 3:57 am

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by i never see pigeons in wheeling » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:07 am

Longstride wrote:DISCLAIMER: Let me start off that I understand the disadvantages of this proposition and am in NO WAY/SHAPE/FORM advocating its usage at all, ever, period; but I've had this idea for a while and just thought it'd be an interesting concept. Consider this post just a fantasy-expression of a quirky possibility that should never actually be used.
---------------------

Power sets usually allow for players to get an extra 5 (or at NSC 10, or at NHB possibly 20) points for buzzing in particularly early on a question. What if, for a moment, we supposed to reverse this. That a player would get extra points for buzzing in later on in a question.

Consider: In a power-marked set, there are coinciding advantages for a player to buzz in early (they get points, they get more points for the early buzz, and they prevent the other team from getting points.) However, if a set were to be reversed-powered, every buzz would require utilitarian calculations of payoff. Buzzing in early has the advantage of preventing another team from acquiring points but at the expense of sacrificing extra points you may earn yourself. In such a fashion, every question becomes a calculation by a player on how much knowledge the opposing side has regarding a question and therefore how late a successful buzz can be achieved.

Clearly, this proposition would have downsides (the bottom brackets would have outrageously high-scoring games), but I'm curious as to what someone else thinks of this. What would a top-tier National game look like with such an interesting proposition. Would Quizbowlers, the notoriously impatient and trigger-happy creatures we are, ignore the possibility for more points and buzz in anyway, or would there be an added layer of tactical strategy to the game as the stakes rise the longer the question runs for?
If you had two very mismatched teams, I suppose that there would be some sort of very twisted Stackelberg competition in play here.
Ankit
Cal '16
Bellarmine College Preparatory '12

User avatar
ProfessorIanDuncan
Wakka
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by ProfessorIanDuncan » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:05 pm

This exercise in game thoery would probably lead to a more conservative gameplay. If you keep a -5 for negging, then the opposing team gets an extra 5 points for just waiting till the end of the question. Most players wouldn't wait to get a few extra points, but people would probably sit on questions a little more because the penalty for negging is greater and there is a small bonus for sitting a bit longer. Reverse Powering would also made the ends of games very interesting if one team is behind by 40 or 45 points going into the last question.
Alec Vulfson
Irvington High School '13

Arkangel de la Muerte
Lulu
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by Arkangel de la Muerte » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:59 pm

What are Ann B. Davis-style rules?
Amol Patil
Beck Junior High (2010-2013)
Cinco Ranch High School (2013-)

User avatar
pajaro bobo
Wakka
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:12 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Reverse Powering: An exercise in Game Theory?

Post by pajaro bobo » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:32 pm

postfan wrote:What are Ann B. Davis-style rules?
You can read up on them here: http://www.qbwiki.com/wiki/Ann_B._Davis
Alex Liu
Georgia Tech '1X
Chattahoochee '13

Locked