Talk:Blotto game

Game theory Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

recent research

Sometimes I search for things on the internet. Tonight I was learning about game theory because someone brought up the monty hall game. I found this post: https://twitter.com/microsoft_edu/status/419157474420486144 and I followed that link to learn about colonel blotto and the solution, because I like knowing we have figured out something. I read the blog post, and I tried to follow all the links from the page, and I didn't really understand blotto games until I watched a youtube video. Once I did that, I searched around some more, because they said there was a solution, but I hadn't found it yet. But I found this link https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=5rg-_ZUAAAAJ&citation_for_view=5rg-_ZUAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C and I wanted to know if that's what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.155.86 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1950 article from RAND, 'a continuous Blotto game' or something, solved for equal number of soldiers with any number of battlefields. Have to check though. 58.146.204.191 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

battlefields

Either the wording's wrong, or a major mistake has been made in this article. That's because battlefields, in real life, are ordered. Thus, while (1;2;3) ties with (1;1;4), (3;2;1) wins against (1;1;4). Dex Stewart (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, battlefields are ordered, but that doesn't preclude constraints (such as: battlefield 'A' can not be allocated fewer resources than battlefield 'B', etc.). JocK (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then there are more than three choices for playing with 6 soldiers and 3 battlefields, are there not? The article states there are only three. Dex Stewart (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is not stated clear enough in the article? Labelling the battlefields A, B and C, and denoting the number of soldiers allocated to battlefield x by N(x), then under the constraints Sum N(x) = 6, each N(x) > 0, and N(A) ≥ N(B) ≥ N(C) only three allocations are allowed:

(N(A), N(B), N(C)) = (2, 2, 2), (3, 2, 1) and (4, 1, 1). JocK (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N(A)>=N(B)>=N(C) is not required in typical Blotto game and N(x)>0 is not required as well. Ordering is usually important(so that (3,2,1) is different from (2,1,3)). This is because each battlefield is a separate entity; in the previous example (3,2,1) wins against (2,1,3) as the former wins in 2 out of 3 battlefield. The current example is severely flawed and needs to be corrected. 58.146.204.191 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example is incorrect in stating that the pair of strategies (2,2,2) and (2,2,2) is a Nash equilibrium. Against the strategy (2,2,2), an improvement in payoffs is achieved by switching from (2,2,2) to (3,3,0): the payoffs increase from 1 1/2 to 2. Further, it is incorrect to say that there are multiple Nash equilbria; in fact, there are no pure strategy equilbria at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw2345 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

links

What is the link with goofspiel ? Generalblotto (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

domination

This looks exactly like the computer game style 'domination' in first person shooters (where each team attempts to capture and hold as many control points as possible and the team that throws more people at a control point generally claims it). The difference is that in a computer game you can reallocate team members to control points on the fly. Has there been research in these 'dynamic' strategies? This could be useful knowledge to avoid 'best strategies' that may result to robotic gameplay and therefore a worse game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.191.85 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science News: February 11, 2016

Well-known game theory scenario solved
Colonel Blotto: New algorithm could help political strategists, business leaders make better decisions
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211190010.htm

--jwalling (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]