I hate game theory questions

http://www.techinterview.org/post/526325766/pirates

I hate this question, at least it's statement. A lot of these game theory questions are bandied about, but they are loaded with unspoken assumptions about human behavior behaving in perfectly logical rigidity to unspoken assumptions.

The unspoken assumptions here are:

- the pirates will obey the rules (uh, they are pirates, why would they consistently obey) over time

- pirates will not bargain or collude, except in the way that is laid out in the explanation

The strange thing about this "puzzle" is that it assumes perfect adherence to proposals and rules, but assumes no one can communicate alternatives.

If the result (98 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1) is so inevitable, then why wouldn't the pirates (0 - 1 - 0 -1) countercollude to kill the leader in exchange for equal distribution, under the express conditions of giving up the right of decision of division based on rank?

What we have here are five agents. The prioritization only matters for the first case if the other four agents (actually, three can collude, leave the least popular one out in the cold, and kill the top man). If the deconstruction is that the initial collusion leads to the four situation, then the remaining three can collude to drop it to equal division amongst them and kill the top man, and so on. Since the number one priority (unstated) is living over being rich, this collusion strategy would force the divider to think of his future and be more equitous.. Under this collusion strategy, the first leader to not be greedy lives, and keeps money, with security.

In my opinion, the outlined strategy would only provide a tentative peace until the others determined a collusion strategy. The fact that there exist deconstructions of the puzzle for n=1,2,3,4 doesn't matter as much. The fact you START with five as the initial playfield invites the opportunity for collusion that wouldn't exist at simpler n=1 or n=2. Essentially, the decision tree is not well expressed for the more complicated situations.

In reality, this is nothing more than a minimal resource allocation problem dressed up in a sexy way that highlights current income inequality and distribution in modern capitalist economies. It really invites too many messy gray outcomes.