4 ms·
> In theory, the first player only needs to split $999999/$1. $1 is better than nothing for the second player, so if he was perfectly selfish and rational, he w
by xboxnolifes 4y ago
> In theory, the first player only needs to split $999999/$1. $1 is better than nothing for the second player, so if he was perfectly selfish and rational, he would accept the offer.
An important point is that this is only true if there can only be one offer and no chance of re-negotiation. Player 2 knows that their cooperation has value, and has negotiating power because of it.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoThe point is that the seond player has negotiation power whether they get a chance to make a counter-offer, or not. The first player must try to guess what the second player will consider a fair split, otherwise they (the first player) get nothing. In that sense the rational thing is to offer half the money, which is really the fairest possible split. Anything less risks the second player flipping the bird and watching the first player lose a fortune, at the cost of $1 to themselves (the second player, and in the case of the proposed as "rational" choice).
- xboxnolifes 4y agoThat explains why player 1 should not offer only $1, but it doesn't explain why player 2 would not take $1 if offered. If there is no chance of renegotiation, and you already got an offer of free money, it is irrational to not take the money. The only reason player 2 would do so is if: (1) this is a regularly occuring event and they want to help future player 2s, or (2) they like the emotional response of spiting player 1.