Prisoner’s Dilemma in Football (Game Theory)
The article discusses the Chargers vs. Raiders game from January. The game went to overtime at 29-29, which created a prisoners dilemma, which the Blake Schuster points out and explains. Whichever team won this game would advance to the playoffs, and whichever team list this game would end their season there. If they tied, both teams would make it into the playoffs. If either team tried for a tie though, it would be much easier for the other team to go for a win. After a while, the Raiders looked ready to just wait out the clock and send both teams to the playoffs, but then at 38 seconds the Chargers called a timeout. The Chargers were only trying to set up their defense, but the Raiders had no way of knowing this. In response to the self-interested move of the Chargers, the Raiders gave up on trying for a tie and went for a first down. The Raiders ended up kicking a field goal and winning. The author points out that this played out exactly as some people had predicted because the lack of trust caused both teams to act out of self interest.
To me this connects to class because it is a perfect real life example of game theory playing out in real life, and in a way that mirrors the prisoner’s dilemma. Looking at the possible outcomes, I’ll have to make simplifications because outcomes aren’t actually guaranteed except in the case both try for a tie, but the generally ideas are the same. The Pareto Optimal outcome would’ve been a tie, where both teams would’ve made it to the playoffs. In order to get to this outcome, both teams would need to trust each other enough to just run out the clock. This would also mean making it easier for the other team to win if they chose to play out of self interest. The last possible outcome would be both teams try to win, and only one of them moves on. As there was very low trust between the two, as rivals, and lots of money at stake for both sides, the dominant strategy for both teams would be to play to win. If one team plays to win and the other team tries for a tie, the other team will be easier to beat and the aggressive team will likely win. If both teams play to win, then it is unknown who will win. This leaves the outcomes for playing to win as likely winning and an unknown outcome, and trying for a tie as both win and a loss. As such, playing to win is the dominant strategy for both teams, leading them to the Nash equilibrium of both trying to win, with only one team moving on to the playoffs, which is exactly what happened.