Talk:So Long Sucker

Board and table games Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:SGames

Copyright Infringement

Please note that I removed the bulk of this article because it plagiarizes this web site. If you are the original author of that material and would like to have it on Wikipedia, see WP:CP about what to do. Otherwise, please do not add it again. You can certainly summarize it in your own words, however. --Fell Collar 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example?

The definition of how to play is thorough, but possibly a bit overwhelming. It seems like a simple example of a couple rounds of play would be useful. I'd write one myself, but I'm not entirely confident that I understand what's going on. - Flooey 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name - clarification

I have tried (but failed) to keep people from making a howler. If you look at the book (which predates the TV show by several years) you will see (as I wrote last in May 2007 but people don't seem to read the history note):

In the biography - but not the BBC programme - it's "Fuck Your Buddy" - and the book is surely the more reliable source

What seems to happen is that people who have seen the TV show assume this is a typo - and change it to "Fuck You Buddy". Why clever researchers at the BBC chose to change this (and so subtly make a point about Nash and his game which I think is not actually there) is for others to discuss. But the reference in the article is to what it says in a book - and so this should be kept accurate.Testbed (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-retractability of prisoners

I have a question that is to do with the non-retractability of prisoners and to explain it I use the following example.

Mr Green, Mr Yellow, Mr Blue and Mr Red started out with chips, the color of which matches their surname.

Mr Green notices that Mr Yellow has a blue chip. He transfers it to Mr Red. Mr Red now has two blue chips. On Mr Red's next go he kills one blue chip (not the one Mr Green transferred). On Mr Green's next go he transfers Mr Red's other blue chip to his own stack. This causes everyone to ask "hang on - is this allowed?"...

So which principle is in play

1. By saying that a transfer can not be retracted - does that simply mean that once the transfer has been made, the player's go is over and you can't take the move back (like taking your fingers off a chess piece)? 2. When a transfer is made, does the chip take on a special identity such that the committing player can't transfer it again? 3. When a transfer is made, does the chip take on a special identity such that the committing player can only transfer it somewhere other than where it originally came from.

Sorry if this is confusing. Thanks