Why Game Theory can’t be used to predict the winner of Survivor
In class we spoke about the application of game theory in predicting the outcomes of games. A few of the examples we studied included a tennis serve, penalty kicks in soccer, and the prisoner’s dilemma. Even though we can predict the outcomes of these games, not all games can be analyzed using game theory. As the article explains, the tv game show Survivor is a game that’s winner cannot be predicted using game theory for several reasons.
One reason is that what is considered an advantage in Survivor changes all the time. In the game show, sometimes being the strongest competitor is a disadvantage because it makes you the target of other players. This makes it impossible to say what one’s payoff would be if they used a certain strategy because payoffs would change. Additionally, players have emotions that change throughout the game leading to random decisions which are hard to predict. In the examples we use in class the players want the highest pay out so they use the strategy that will give them the highest payout. One thing the article mentions is that players in Survivor are not always playing with strategies that are in their best interest. This is because part of the game is tricking other players into doing things not in their best interest which is not something game theory can account for.
In the end of the game the winner is selected by a group of judges who were previously in the game. If a player of the game Survivor were to know what each judge was looking for in a winner, they could compose a winning strategy using game theory because they’d be able to calculate the payout from doing certain things the judges like or dislike. Without knowing what the judges want one must just play randomly and hope for the best.