3 ms·
Pretty sure he means this: - assume heads beats tails - if both players get opposite results (HT, TH) then the winner is obvious - if both players get heads, pl
by abrookewood 1mo ago
Pretty sure he means this:
- assume heads beats tails
- if both players get opposite results (HT, TH) then the winner is obvious
- if both players get heads, player A is the winner
- if both players get tails, player B is the winner.
- physicalecon 1mo ago[dead]
- thaumasiotes 1mo agoIf you're going to specify that the number of players is 2, there is no advantage over the much simpler system of: Flip one coin. If heads, player A is the winner. If tails, player B is the winner.
- e12e 1mo agoExcept that as a sibling comment mentions; that generalizes to any size of group - for six players you could roll one d6, and have "that" player go first. But apparently the constraints are: every player rolls one die once.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago> But apparently the constraints are: every player rolls one die once. That doesn't eliminate the natural scheme, it just adds some useless die rolls. You can have each of two players flip a coin and choose player A when player A flips heads or player B when player A flips tails.
- e12e 29d agoUseless depends on context here; I believe the idea is that each player gets a feeling of agency (they go in the order dictated by "their" luck, not leaving the decision to someone elses roll). The most pragmatic would probably be to shuffle N cards from ace(one) through N - and let everyone draw). But that doesn't involve dice.