3 ms·

Couldn't this game theoretically be over much faster? From http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/discover/strategy/rules.cfm#buy http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/

Couldn't this game theoretically be over much faster? From http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/discover/strategy/rules.cfm#buy http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/discover/strategy/rules... Whenever a player lands on an unowned MONOPOLY property he may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. He receives the Title Deed card showing ownership and places it face-up in front of him. If he does not wish to buy the MONOPOLY property it is sold at auction by the Banker to the highest bidder. The buyer pays to the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option of buying it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price. This article doesn't seem to be following the official rules (at least, according to the multiple "Action: None"s scattered throughout). Faster variation: Player 1: Rolls a number causing him to land on ANY property. Declines to purchase, but bids the price up such that Player 2 receives the deed but pays all of his money. Player 2: Lands on community chest, has to pay some amount of money greater than the mortgaged value of property received on last play, goes bankrupt. Am I missing something?

what 16y ago
This is also brought up in the comments of the article itself. Yes, the game could be over in fewer turns/dice rolls this way. But then, would someone really pay that much for the property at auction? Maybe not.
- jerhinesmith 16y ago
  Agreed, but we are talking about the shortest theoretically possible game anyway, so might as well put all options on the table. One could argue that rolling doubles 5 times in the first 7 roles is just as unlikely. :)
  - what 16y ago
    Ah, right. My thinking was that in the scenario proposed in the article, it doesn't matter what player 2 does (apart from the dice rolls, which is beyond their control anyway) they'll still lose. You only have to control the actions of player 1. While in the auction scenario you need to control both players to make it work. So if you were actually playing as player 1 and all the dice rolls lined up, you would only be guaranteed to pull off the scenario in the article. But I guess it doesn't matter since both scenarios are theoretically possible.

what 16y ago

This is also brought up in the comments of the article itself. Yes, the game could be over in fewer turns/dice rolls this way. But then, would someone really pay that much for the property at auction? Maybe not.

jerhinesmith 16y ago
Agreed, but we are talking about the shortest theoretically possible game anyway, so might as well put all options on the table. One could argue that rolling doubles 5 times in the first 7 roles is just as unlikely. :)
- what 16y ago
  Ah, right. My thinking was that in the scenario proposed in the article, it doesn't matter what player 2 does (apart from the dice rolls, which is beyond their control anyway) they'll still lose. You only have to control the actions of player 1. While in the auction scenario you need to control both players to make it work. So if you were actually playing as player 1 and all the dice rolls lined up, you would only be guaranteed to pull off the scenario in the article. But I guess it doesn't matter since both scenarios are theoretically possible.