Winning White Elephant Gift Exchanges Using Game Theory
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
I would suggest instead doing some type of Colonel Blotto game. For instance:
Give each player 1000 points^. Points can be used to secretly bid on gifts and/or on players. When the bids are revealed, each gift is temporarily assigned to the highest bidder, but then, immediately re-assigned to the highest bidder on that player. So if you want to get a specific gift, not only should you bid on that gift, but you should also bid on yourself to avoid the gift being reassigned. Or you could put a high bid on someone you think will snatch that gift.
^ or a suitably large number to avoid issues of divisibility.
Under that 1 is the best (can always get whatever gift they want) but they usually get stuck with a mediocre present until the very end.
> "There are lots of variations on these rules, such as capping the number of times a gift can be stolen or letting the person who went first take another turn at the end."
It would be more interesting if someone could come up with a "fairer" version.
I was really hoping for a more rigorous proof and a more non-intuitive strategy.
She chose to "steal" a gift, whereby the owner said "no", quickly realizing the participant was serious.
And that, folks, is where grudges come from.
EDIT: d'oh, should've read the code. This is accounted for.
The term white elephant refers to a gift whose maintenance costs exceed its usefulness. While the first use of this term remains a matter of contention among historians
Unless there is a limit on the number of times a gift can be stolen, always steal a gift valued above the average of all currently opened gifts.
Limits on the number of times a gift can be stolen are popular, making the strategy more useful. In that case, you should open a gift if none of the available gifts are above average.
A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.And that's where these things lose me. Turning a community event into a competitive event.
And yet, in many places, if you don't participate, you are viewed as shunning the community.
I see I'm downvoted, but I was serious in my comment. In the scenario described, as well as in a significant fraction of other "social" behavior including in work settings, I encounter a lot of competition. And I am one for whom such competition simply is not fun.
I guess if I consider it a bit more, a lot of it seems to be centered around attitudes of "zero sum gain"; someone must "win", and correspondingly others much "lose".
By contrast, I am... oh, I forget the corresponding terminology, but I prefer social gatherings that are a "net gain."
Another area where I find this: Sports. For sports with teams and/or competition, you need more than one participant in order to have the game. Yet instead of enjoying the game and thanking them for their participation, too often there seems to be an excessive amount of focus on "winning" and on "ragging on" or criticizing (actually, verbally abusing) the losers.
I enjoy participating and it is thrilling to win. But I do NOT enjoy "ragging on" nor berating the loser.
I guess I'm taking this secret santa thread/response too far. But I've observed that I'm not the only one. There is a greater than miniscule fraction of the population who does not enjoy such things, nor a lot of sports, because during this event meant to strengthen social cohesion, once again they find the group picking winners and losers. And some of them aren't very nice towards the losers -- even when they cloak this behavior in a facade of "good cheer."
Excessive "ragging" is a net loss, often for the entire group. Chemistry is tricky, and a game like this can get toxic, quickly. As can any game. That's why people often play games, it's a very effective way to suss out people's true nature. Doesn't matter whether it's White Elephants, Bridge, or Golf.
One excellent strategy is to deliberately pick a lame gift and make up a funny story about why you want it. For example, if absolutely nobody wants the lime green monokini, take it and announce that you intend to hire a houseboy and make him wear it.
Presto, everyone is laughing and you are off the hook for winning without dampening the fun of those who want to play the game for keeps.
In reality, it is a net gain. Everyone brings something and everyone comes home with something. There is no loss of gross dollar amount however you might come home with a crap gift when you brought a nice one. The net gain comes from the fun and enjoyment people have in playing these dumb games. Its not really a test of skill, its mostly luck. You can sometimes game the system like in the article but if you open up a real piece of crap, then you're stuck with it. That part isn't as fun but you should be able to laugh at your own misfortune.
My extended family does one of these games every year. Sometimes there are nice things in there like giftcards and booze, sometimes its one of the old knickknacks thats been passed around for years (like this gaudy ceramic high-heel shoe). If you get crap, you just regift it next year and laugh at the person that ends up with it next. Everyone does it and everyone should know what to expect. If you can't contain your emotions for getting "ragged on" for ending up with the crap gift, then you really need to grow up.
Oddly, that's the kind of language bullies often use. "Why can't my victims grow a spine and join in the laughter that goes along with slipping a banana down the back of a fellow's trousers and then hanging him by his underwear from a coat hook?"
But I also recall other settings -- settings where often participation is mandatory in an unspoken way if not through explicit policy -- where such activities are anything but. It seems to be an extension of attitudes that e.g. always seek to qualify someone else's success in a manner that relates to and boosts the ego of the observer/commenter.
What this mostly makes me, is tired. Very tired. It doesn't feel productive, useful, nor terribly interesting.
So, sort of back to the original post that started this thread. More than once, I have helped a friend to "game" such contests and exchanges. The friend who, through collaboration, won the cuckoo clock while I got the runner-up Swiss Army knife. The other friend who won the telescope by combining our credits and shutting down potential competition with a somewhat shocking initial high (but not higher than the bidding might/likely would have gone) bid.
I also registered, with some discomfort, the shock and varying degrees of chagrin I registered coming from the other participants.
Just like every "victory" at work had some asking, "How and why did he get that." Even though I always, invariably tried to be the helpful one -- even towards them. A "team player."
I don't like such games in such settings, because they too often bring up shades of such divisiveness. And they are promoted by a culture and leadership that is all too busy winning at the larger, economic game. (Another year of "cost freezes"...)
Such zero sum gain scenarios, I guess, simply do not interest nor engage me. Even if I can "win", they can prove unmotivating.
I can and do try to change the tone. E.g. joking and engaging in (genuine) good cheer, even at my own minor discomfort. But the larger context out of which the divisiveness springs, can prove overwhelming.
Whereupon, I'd rather not engage. Not even, nor especially, in an Ersatz Spiel of secret Santa.