### Aggressive Mallu boys

Interview with a Mallu

Me: why are you sad?

Mallu: Bajji slapped Sree

Me: so…?

Mallu: He is the Mallu Youth Icon and see he cried, I too feel like crying

Me: Why did he cry for the slap

Mallu: It might have pained him a lot

Me: ok damn it…Why didn’t he give one back instead?

Mallu: We shouldn’t do that, it is not good; we should keep a good example for this country.

Me: Ok, so don’t you think it was funny that a young man cried aloud in front of the country

Mallu: May be he did it out of an embarrassment .It is his personal decision to do what ever he wants to do

Me:What do you think about his statement that "may be Bajji shook hand at the wrong place"

Mallu:See,Bajji is a spinner of the Ball

Me:Haha, I believe we are criticizing Sree out of proportion. But he was so aggressive in the field and it was actually stunning to see him cry

Mallu: See because Sree cried, Harbajan will be penalized. If Sree had done something, both would have suffered. So crying was the right thing to do at the right time.

Me: May be, but he turned out be a sentimental idiot than the usual aggressive bloke.

Mallu: hmm

Me: Thanks for your time, a pleasure talking to you!

Mallu: Thank you too

............................................................................

And I received a big comment on this interview from another Mallu(AKG,my previous roomie)

Here it goes…

I w’d like to draw ur attention on how we mathematicians & statisticians call as a ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ or a “Non-Zero-Sum-Game” can be applied to this context/situation/event.

The branch of ‘Game Theory’ that better represents the dynamics of the world we live in is called the theory of non-zero-sum games. Non-zero-sum games differ from zero-sum games in that there is no universally accepted solution. That is, there is no single optimal strategy that is preferable to all others, nor is there a predictable outcome. All what can be done is for the participants in the game/strategy to come out with a ‘win-win situation/strategy’

Lets take a look at the famous ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ proposed by Merril Flood.

CASE

Two criminals are captured by the police. The police suspect that they are responsible for a murder, but do not have enough evidence to prove it in court, though they are able to convict them of a lesser charge (carrying a concealed weapon, for example). The prisoners are put in separate cells with no way to communicate with one another and each is offered to confess.

If neither prisoner confesses, both will be convicted of the lesser offense and sentenced to a year in prison. If both confess to murder, both will be sentenced to 5 years. If, however, one prisoner confesses while the other does not, then the prisoner who confessed will be granted immunity while the prisoner who did not confess will go to jail for 20 years.

What should each prisoner do?

ANSWER

To help us determine the answer, let's come up with a payoff matrix for each prisoner. The value in each cell is the time spent in prison, so the prisoners will try to end up in the matrix cell with the lowest number. The first number of each pair refers to the prison time of prisoner 1, and the second number to prisoner 2.

Prisoner 2

Confess Not Confess

Prisoner 1 Confess 5,5 0,20

Not Confess 20.0 1,1

Let's assume the role of prisoner 1. We're looking to minimize our prison time. Since we have no way of knowing whether our partner in crime has confessed, let's first assume that he has not. If Prisoner 2 doesn't confess either, both will go to prison for 1 year. Not bad. But, if Prisoner 1 confesses, he will go free, while his partner rots away in jail. We'll assume that there is no "honor among thieves" and each prisoner only cares about minimizing his jail time. From the above discussion, it is obvious that if Prisoner 2 does not confess, Prisoner 1 is definitely better off confessing.

Now let's look at the other possibility. Say prisoner 2 confesses. If Prisoner 1 does not confess, he will go to jail for 20 years. But if he does confess, he will get only 5 years in prison. It is clearly better to confess in this case as well.

So is that it? Is the problem solved? Is each prisoner better off confessing? Well, it may seem so from the above discussion, but if we look at the payoff matrix, it is clear that the best payoff for both prisoners is when neither confesses! But game theory advocates that both confess.

This "game" can be generalized to any situation when two players are in a non-cooperative situation where the best all-around situation is for both to cooperate, but the worst individual outcome is to be cooperating player while the other player defects.

On the one hand, it is tempting to defect, or confess. Since you have no way of influencing the other player's decision, no matter what he does, you're better off confessing. But on the other hand, you're both in the same boat. Both of you should be sensible enough to realize that cheating undermines the common good.

There is no single "right" solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma (that's why it's a dilemma). Its implications carry into psychology, economics, and many other fields (and probably into cricket as well, as we’ll try to prove).

Now relate the same to Sree & Bhajji’s problem. They can either ‘collaborate’ or ‘Compete’ with each other. Take a look at the payoff matrix for both:

Note that to ‘Collaborate’ means to agree that you are at fault! To ‘Compete’ means that you argue that you are not at fault, while the other person is at fault!!

Bhajji’s Strategy

Collaborate Compete

Sree’s strategy Collaborate 5 match ban,5 match ban 0 match ban, 11 match ban

Compete 11 match ban,0 match ban 1 match ban,1 match ban

We’ll try to solve this problem from Sree’s point of view. Lets take Sree’s strategy. He would obviously try to minimize his own damage. Since he don’t know what Bhajji’s strategy would be, lets first assume that he (Sree) decides to ‘Compete’. Now assume if Bhajji also ‘Competes’, both will get only One match ban, since …which is not bad at all. On the other hand if Sree decides to ‘Collaborate’ then Bhajji will face 11 game ban, while Sree will walk free. i.e if it is clear that Sree is better off if he ‘Collaborates’

Now if Bhajji decides to ‘Collaborate’, & Sree decides to ‘Compete’ he will get 11 matches ban. But is he also ‘Collaborates’ then each will only be given 5 matches ban. Its clear here that the best strategy for Sree even here is to ‘Collaborate’

The second possibility is of course if Sree decides to ‘Compete’. If Bhajji decides to ‘Collaborate’ then Sree walks free and Bhajji gets 11 match ban. And if Bhajji also ‘Competes’ then each will get only 5 matches ban.

The best strategy therefore for both the players w’d be to ‘Collaborate’ (i.e agree that I am at fault). But the payoff matrix shows that the best solution w’d have been for oth of them to ‘Compete. But a zero sum game advocates that it is better to play ur cards safely even if that may not be the optimal solution, since ur not sure of what the other player might be thinking.

’

So had both of them agreed that they are fault at each other, the issue w’d have been settled nicely. On the contrary, the situation has turned out to be good for one of them and worse for the other. Fortunately or e it is Bhajji who has to suffer this time!!

Confused???Get back to me and I’ll reply with a clearer application of Game theory and the Zero/Non Zero Sum games!!!