Basic rules are like this....
- there are 100 players in the game in 2 teams (red/Green),
- and a roulette wheel, with 1000 numbers.
- 1/3 are red, 1/3 are green, and 1/3 are black. As per roulette...black pays the house.
- Players can enter and leave the game...and players can switch teams.
- Each turn everyone gets a choice
- Bet your team color for $1.
- Bet on a specific number...if it comes up, you personally get $1 extra, and $2 extra is added to the pot every turn from now on.
- Switch teams
- Side deals.
- And, you can add rules to the game, if 60 players can agree to the rule.
- Trade two wedges of one color, for one wedge of the other color, and one black wedge.
- "13s don't pay out."
In all non-libertarians' eyes...the goal is to make sure that our team is getting less screwed...which is best done by changing the rules so the other guys lose.
Note: in the Aretaevian metaphor, there's no way to decrease the number of black wedges. Mancur Olson agrees, as do most of the Public Choice folks. So...folks like Jehu argue that it's crazy to NOT be spending your $1 trying to make sure your team wins. Hard to disagree inside the system...except that the long term effect of playing is to screw everyone.
Bad systems are ones that encourage betting your team color, and trying to change the rules.
An almost livable system is one wherein the value to betting on a specific number, with payout to everyone, is improved.
A fabulous system is one where the casino next door can open up a better game.
In Aretae's vision...there are no wins apart from the casino next door. There's only who loses most, and who loses least. Because the house is screwing everyone so long as it's the only game in town.
Someone with decent writing skills is free to take this post, and make it clear.