Voluntary contributions

[Fioravante Patrone]

I have a proposal: let's ask the administrators to give us the money we need, in order to play the game really!!

Actually, money availability is a severe constraint that does not allow to make as much experimentation as it would be needed!!!

For science's sake, of course

[Cheguevilla]

Personal comments under the spoiler.

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

Obviously, this is a kind of game where the most efficient strategy is to keep the minimum possible offer.
It's just like playing the prisoner dilemma.
Everyone has convenience confessing (choosing 0) but everybody also knows that if everyone put 0 into pot, nobody will win anything.
On the otherside, this choice will grant no loss.
The best cooperative choice is to put 20 but, if everyone puts 20, I will earn much more reducing my bet, up to 0.
This because any played coin will have revenue $1/2$, whilst any non-played coin has revenue $1$.
This is the same problem known as "free riding".
Whereas possible, anyone takes advantage dodging taxes, if everybody else pays.
Of course, this is one of the reasons why the state needs to attend.
This is my personal opinion and spin of the problem, given my economical point of view.
I will wait for Fioravante's explanations, which leave me nosey.

EDIT: I put comments under spoiler tag.

[Fioravante Patrone]

Sorry, I will continue to leave aside my "explanations".

I would like to ask a question to participants (and newcomers, if they like).

Having seen the results of this game, which would be your choice in case you were again in front of the same game to play?

For the participants and newcomers: would you mind to explain the reasons behind your choice?
For the participants to the first "round": in case you change you choice, would you mind to give reasons for your change?

As before, I suggest to answer using the "Spoiler"

[Admin]

Scusate l'italiano, c'è un equivoco di fondo: gli amministratori amministrano parole (e nemmeno tanto bene visto quello che si dice in altre parti di questo forum) non soldi.

I'm interested to know the factor to multiply the money in the pot in order that will be convinient for everyone to leave some money in the pot.

[Fioravante Patrone]

c'è un equivoco di fondo
gli amministratori amministrano parole ... non amministrano soldi.

dammn!

A meno che non inventiamo una moneta virtuale.

Uhm, with virtual money one can pay, at best, only virtual players!

[Cozza Taddeo]

Having seen the results of this game, which would be your choice in case you were again in front of the same game to play?

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

I will obviously bet 0 euro, because I saw that the other players don't want to risk money.

[wedge]

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

The fact that one player (other than me) risked ensured me the gain I wanted. so I would again risk a little bit of money. I continue thinking that, apart of Nash equilibriums, (0,0,0,0,0,0) is not the way! The magic pot multiplies money, let's use it!

[fields]

Having seen the results of this game, which would be your choice in case you were again in front of the same game to play?

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

I obviously confirm my preceding choice: I put 0 in the pot.

Since you cannot influence nor control the other players, if you want to gain, you have to put 0 in the pot. This choice maximizes your gain. You have to imagine that the other players live in another dimension, and they choose the same whatever your choice will be: their choices result from the physical flow of electrical streams in their brains, and you cannot modify them. And this reasoning works whatever are your initial assumptions about the players (they can be robots, monkeys, scientists etc.) and whatever is the result of the preceding game.

Forgive my english!

[Kroldar]

Having seen the results of this game, which would be your choice in case you were again in front of the same game to play?

For the participants and newcomers: would you mind to explain the reasons behind your choice?

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

Answer: $0$
I guess that the people who played $0$ in the first round will go on playing $0$, because they gained some money and, in the worst case, $0$ is still a maxmin strategy. Instead, the players who played a different strategy (and lose money) will now play $0$. So the best reply for me is to play $0$ as I did in the first round.

[wedge]

@fields

Testo nascosto, fai click qui per vederlo

I understand your point of view when you say that you cannot control the choices of the other players. It's true that 0 ensures you the biggest gain, when others' choices are given and you have to choose your contribution in the pot. But on the other hand if everyone aims the biggest possible gain, no-one will gain anything. It's a paradox. This is the reason why I tried to look for a strategy that would bring a less static scene. Obviously I had to suppose that other players had an attitude similar to mine.