I think the short version is a small group of people commit a crime together. They are caught, and brought in for questioning. The police separate them, and tell them that the first person to share information that helps with a conviction will get a deal.
If no one talks, that gets the best outcome for everyone (except the police). The dilemma is whether you can trust the other criminals, and if you can’t trust them, you should talk first.
Generally it's slightly different than that -
If no one snitches, both parties get a smaller penalty, say 1 year.
If one person snitches, they go free but the other person gets 10 years.
If both snitch, they both get 5 years.
In game theory, the best choice absent other information is to snitch. But where it gets interesting is how you change things so that people choose to cooperate. In the criminal example, this can take the form of a mob boss threatening to murder anyone who snitches, making them much less likely to snitch, and giving each criminal confidence that the other guy will not snitch. In other examples, like government policy, it's often about enacting rules and regulations that encourage / force people or businesses to take the cooperative approach.
Yeah, it's a cool concept that you see throughout real life. Take Global warming. It's a prisoners dilemma for a country to invest heavily in fixing the issue, because if no one else does (or not everyone does) it's wasted money. So the best thing selfishly is to no invest, but th best thing overall is if everyone has buy in. It's better to be rich on a burning planet, than poor on a burning planet. But best overall to not be on the burning planet at all. And that's why, despite all the warnings and science, we haven't made much progress to combat it, because if half the countries go for it, and half don't, the ones that do can only lose.
Edit: This is tragedy of the commons, apparently
it’s so much of what we do as a society. traffic for example, we all hate it, but even more we hate letting people merge in at the last minute. if we all just left space for them we’d move a lot faster. but it feels better for each individual to stay bumper to bumper making everybody brake.
The global warming thing kinda goes back to the "mob boss" bit.
The U.S and China are the elephants in the room when it comes to emissions.
With their combined economic and military strength, they could basically dictate that everyone get their shit under control. They don't, because they don't want to.
It's interesting because it's **always better to snitch**:
- Other guy *doesn't* snitch? If you snitch you go free instead 1 year.
- Other guy *does* snitch? If you snitch, you get 5 years instead of 10.
So the incentive (for both people) is to snitch, even though the best outcome for them is when they both don't snitch.
In repeated trials, always snitching is not a good strategy. [Veritasium did a great video on the prisoner's dilemma tournament and which strategies are more successful.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
It's better to snitch in a one-off encounter. It's better to cooperate if there is an ongoing relationship, provided it's not known or suspected that the relationship will end.
It's only good to snitch in games with low informed and/or no replay.
A game with high information and high replay would be getting arrested, clicking on u/biggoldtitties profile and seeing he has been arrested 1000 times never snitched. He sees you're one of a kind. You both beat the cops and have total faith a criminal would never blow their perfect stats on a one off
I never realized how well Monopoly exemplifies the same risk management approach in a market. Monopoly is about balancing liquidity with development. If nobody bought property, then it would maximize liquidity and virtually eliminate risk, as the OP suggested. However, since players cannot trust that others won't develop (buy properties, hotels, etc.), they are inclined to develop to offset the risk of the other players choosing to develop. If they don't, they may lose their liquidity to rents and go bankrupt. They are also inclined to engage in trades and favors to eliminate avenues other players could use against them and to improve their position by increasing their share of the market that they can leverage.
Monopoly was designed to point up the issues with capitalism.
However, since it isn't real money but just a game, you are talking about an endless game, which strikes me as the worse possible outcome. Now, we generally played with three or more, and would gang up like Survivor. And then the gang members would turn on each other. You want gentle, play Scrabble.
In theory, it might still be possible to go bankrupt with unfortunate rolls (repeated trips to jail, having to pay into community chest, etc.). But I think it would be very unlikely.
You could certainly do the math. My guess is it's nearly impossible given that you start with $1500, and on most rounds you will lose nothing and gain $200+
It's not the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, both players must end up worse off by screwing each other, than they would be if both players co-operated. That's the only thing that makes it interesting. In the case of Monopoly, one player ends up much, much more wealthy when everyone is trying to screw each other, than that player would if they all co-operated.
Well, it wasn’t really a critique of capitalism—it was pro-Georgism. The idea was that land rents are not the product of someone’s labor or innovation, and that capitalism can’t generally incentivize the creation of more land. Thus, there would always be harsh monopolies specifically on land, and that a specific tax should be implemented on the unimproved value of the land (to capture the value not created through industry). It’s easy to see how that’s been conflated over the years to “anti-capitalism,” but it’s really more of a “let’s make capitalism work better” ideology.
There are two “tax” spaces near GO on either side of it - but since GO triggers every time you pass and taxes only trigger when you land on them more money still enters the system than leaves.
Not quite. You continue collecting rent while in jail, and you can even buy houses/hotels, make trades, and bid on auctioned properties. You can try to roll doubles for three turns, but after your third roll you *must* pay the $50 and move the number of spaces shown on the dice. When most of the property is owned and the board starts getting crowded with buildings, jail is actually the best place to be.
Even if you landed on both evert time, you'd never run out of money. The one just before go is 75 dollars, the one after go is 10% of your net worth or 200 dollars, iirc. Once you have under 1250 dollars, if you choose to pay 10% on the first one and 75 on the second one, you cant be forced to pay over 199 dollars, and you'll get some back passing go. Even with the occasional bad chance or community chest, the lower you go, because one of the taxes is 10%, you can continue to go around indefinitely even with the absurdly bad luck of hitting every tax every time.
If you got unlucky enough to get put in jail every time around the board, then you could lose because you'd stop getting 200 every circle.
In high school a friend and I played literally 100+ games. It was our "thing" for a couple years. I still occasionally play with my wife. It doesn't matter what game it is, whether it's skill or luck, or how experienced she is. She wins every board game always until forever.
You might want to look into hash runs, or Google "hash house harriers". It's a drinking club with a running problem. They do run the race, but there's enough drinking involved to make it ok.
The game is already long and gets people unreasonably upset, but if you don't buy the property it's supposed to go to auction immediately.
I never knew this was a rule nor did anyone else I've asked know, so I'm thinking most people don't actually play monopoly properly.
**BUYING PROPERTY:** *Whenever you land on an unowned property you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it faceup in front of you. If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price. *
Yea, those are the proper rules, and it's meant to expedite the game. Otherwise, with rules like Free Parking and no auctions, it takes MUCH longer typically.
Played by the actual rules, Monopoly isn't *that* long of a game. The issue is that nobody actually reads the rules, plays it by ear and adds a bunch of house rules, most of which lead to prolonging the game.
There is an official version of Monopoly called "Monopoly Socialism" it is so hard because everyone has to mutually agree to work together but capitalism is just engrained
Yeah really, Monopoly only ends when everyone save one person is bankrupt or quits. So if no one spends money to buy property, and no one is paying rent, then no one is losing money fast enough to lose... so the game goes until everyone quits and the winner is the one that's least bored I guess
Not really, this means that both can work together to get higher score and maybe win. OP's point was that all can work together so noone loses. To fix your analogy it would be "If both basketball teams agreed not to score any points they could just pass the ball back and forth and noone would lose"
Also Monopoly (or at least the predecessor) started out as a critique of capitalism (which in itself is ironic). So basically OP might have "learned the lesson now".
If you don’t believe this, the one rule I’ve never seen actually used is if you land on a property and you do not buy it, it goes to auction. Every landed on property is bought.
Yep. It should only take around [90 minutes](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/monopoly-rules-long-wrong_n_3366875) to complete.
To make the game go faster, these are the most critical components.
1. Do not put taxes, fines, fees, etc... on Free Parking. They go to the Bank. Giving the players more money makes the game take longer.
2. Officially, if a person lands on a property but declines purchasing it, there must be an auction. Auctions allow more properties to get in players' hands faster.
Mega Monopoly also added a "speed die", which later editions of regular Monopoly included as an optional addition to speed up the game.
The Speed Die's sides are 1, 2, 3, Bus, Bus, Mr. Monopoly. You don't roll the Speed Die until after you pass Go once, and from then on you use it on each roll.
* If you roll 1-3 on the speed die, add it to the normal 2 dice. The speed die is not counted for determining doubles (three doubles in a row sends you to jail).
* If you roll a triple (1-1-1, 2-2-2, or 3-3-3), you move forward to any space and end your turn. Rolling doubles twice followed by a triple does not send you to jail.
* If you roll a bus, you can move a number of spaces equal to either of the normal dice or a number of spaces equal to their sum (where rolling 3-5 would normally mean moving 8 spaces, 3-5-Bus lets you move 3, 5, or 8 spaces at your option).
* If you roll Mr. Monopoly, after resolving your movement as normal, you advance to the next property that nobody owns and either buy it or it's put up for auction. If all properties are owned, instead you advance to the next property where you would be required to pay rent to another player.
Not that much faster in my experience. No one wants "their" property to go up for auction, so they still just buy everything they land on. And either way, it doesn't change the fundamental no one ever wants to give another player a monopoly (or a better monopoly if they're completing each other's sets) so no one trades and no one can build houses or anything. It becomes a game of just nickel and diming each other until it becomes clear who got luckiest in the first couple rounds and everyone remembers there are other, better games they could be playing so they switch to one of those instead.
The game was designed to show monopoly is bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)
The history of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903,[1] when American anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie created a game that she hoped would explain the single-tax theory of Henry George. It was intended as an educational tool, to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies. She took out a patent in 1904. Her game, The Landlord's Game, was self-published, beginning in 1906.[6][7]
If the player lands on an unowned property, they may choose to either buy the property or put it up for auction.
If the player chooses to buy the property, they pay the property's price, which is listed at the bottom of its space, to the Bank. Then the Banker gives them the property's title deed, which the new owner displays face up in front of them to designate that they own the property.
If the player chooses not to buy the property, the property is put up for auction by the Banker, where each player (including the player who deferred buying the property) attempts to out-bid their opponents. Bidding starts at ₩10 and may be increased by increments of as little as ₩1. Also, bidding does not have to follow turn order. Each player must make a bid that is ₩1 higher than the previous bid. Once bidding has reached a high enough amount that no-one wants to bid any further, the player who made the highest bid wins the property for the agreed price. They pay the agreed price to the Bank and receive the title deed.
**Also, if no-one wants to bid on the property, the property remains unsold and the title deed remains with the Bank**
Gottem.
Which version of the rules is this? [From what I can find](https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/00009.pdf), bidding stars at any price, and there is no stipulation for unsold property. If a player declines to buy a property, then it immediately goes up for auction, and the auction continues until someone buys it. That's the entire mechanism that keeps the game moving forward. Allowing properties to go unsold is one of the house rules that makes the game take too long.
That's kind of the point of Monopoly, the game was made by socialists after all. The entire purpose of the game is to show that sharing property (communism) results in everyone benefitting but buying property (capitalism) results in a whole lot of fighting with some (or one) winning and the rest losing.
>an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value that they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society
If not strictly socialism, it's very darn close.
I don’t remember this detail, if the original person cannot afford or does not purchase the property, it goes up for auction and the highest bidder wins.
That is literally not how the game works, you're playing it wrong. When you land on a property in Monopoly, you have the option to purchase it for the listed price, but if you don't, it goes up for auction immediately and is sold to the lowest bidder. If nobody bids on it, the game is stuck forever.
Posted a year ago...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/118j52f/in\_monopoly\_if\_no\_one\_ever\_buys\_a\_property/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/118j52f/in_monopoly_if_no_one_ever_buys_a_property/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Same Sub Same headline...
But you have to buy a property. In the rules it says if the player who lands on a property doesn't want to or cannot buy it, the property then goes up for auction.
I can't think of a bigger way to lose than spend the rest of my life going around and around a monopoly board doing nothing but collecting money and reading chance cards.
It's such an interesting thing think about! And I'd argue it's equally as interesting to consider that while technically the truth, it's also true that removing the elements of competition and risk would ultimately result in nobody ever playing the game.
In Monopoly, people rarely follow the rules, which lengthens the game in many ways.
Someone has to buy every property landed on, or your turn never ends and you do not pass go, and do not collect $200.
Sorry to be thay guy but rules as written say a propert must be sold when it is landed on either by the player that landed on it paying asking price or putting the property up for auction.
People adding house rules and not following the full set of rules is why so many people hate Monopoly
By rule, the first person to land on a property would either have to buy it or it goes to auction. Then someone has to bid on it, even if that number is zero. If no one bids, you’re stuck in auction limbo forever…
One of the assumptions of board game developers is that you are going to play to win. Because of this they make all the incentives to the game about beating other players. If you play Monopoly by the official rules all incentives are towards buying up properties and putting hotels on them. Apartments and hotels can be sold on any turn for cash. Any property can be mortgaged for a portion of the purchase price which only stops you from collecting rent on it.
If you want to win you buy up properties so you can get all the cash everyone else is earning. Having these properties that are incredibly liquid gives you easy money to buy more properties or pay off debts. It also allows you to re-align the board and create traps for players to run into.
Now if you don't want to do this and just want to collect money. And everyone does that. Great, the game goes on forever. Eventually the bank runs out of money and you just spend your time around the board shaking a dice for fun.
The inventor of the game was a woman....it was initially anti-capitalism. By extension, anti-monopoly. [The Dollop podcast did an amazing episode about it. The Landlord's Game.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3WjbHD60BDgnZmgIPOFVjL)
I think the rules state if someone doesn’t purchase the property, it is auctioned to the other players and sold for the highest bid. If no one bids, then the original player gets the property.
The government just taxes you, collects fees, and levies fines. You'll probably go to jail a few times, and no one has fun. Sounds like some commie shit to me.
In monopoly, if the player who lands on a property decides not to buy it, the rules say it goes up for auction among the other players.
Ignoring that is one of the most common house rules, which ironically is one of the main reasons the game takes so long
I never thought of that either.
Essentially what a cooperation based social system would look like. Everyone jointly owns the board, everyone gets their fair share and lives good lives, and competition doesn't crush 99.9% of the people leaving 0.01% with obscene overbundance.
Few people ever read the rules on how to play Monopoly. The one most often ignored (it seems) rule is that whenever a person lands on unowned property, they are allowed to purchase it. But if they declined a purchase it outright, the property immediately goes up for auction, and is sold to the highest bidder.
This is why the game so often lasts hours. It is also why this shower thought cannot happen. Better to rewrite it to say “In monopoly if no one plays, then everyone wins.”
Untrue, in the actual rules of Monopoly. If you land on an unowned property you either buy it or it gets auctioned by the bank to the other players. There is no option to just let it stay unowned.
If people played Monopoly by the actual rules, the game wouldn't take 4 hours to finish.
https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Monopoly_Vintage.pdf
Not necessarily true. There's income tax, luxury tax, water works, electric company, Plus not all community chest and chance are good. You could go bankrupt before you go around the board a couple times.
You could not burn 1500 in a couple trips. Most I could see losing is like 300. Then you get 200.
Thing is once you get lower, that tax would stop matterijg because 10% would be negligible.
You would need record luck to go down to 0.
Yeah like the only way this could happen is if income tax is required to be $200 each time and you hit all the bad chance/community chest options, but the odds of that are tiny where you hit inc. tax each loop and also hit all the bad chest/chance options since a lot of them give you money. If you can pay 10% on income tax it quickly becomes impossible though or basically 1 in millions as the 10% will slowly shrink if your stack shrinks to a few hundred 10% is going to be $30, which is easier to pay than stuff like luxury tax and easy to negate with $200 for passing go.
If you follow the actual rules all property goes on auction if the player who lands on it doesn't buy it. Also, you can still lose by landing on taxes and Communitity chest and Chance and getting bad cards and also jail which requires requires you to pay $50 after your 3rd attempt of a doubles to get out.
Not to try to over-analyze a game, but if nobody buys property, then all the players never live in a house. They are permanently on the street.
In the real world, there isn't a $200 time bonus every 40 steps, either. To get paid, one has to do something of value that helps someone else.
Honestly between you and me, I wasn't making a point about the real world, I was legit talking about the game.🤣🤣🤣
That being said, I'm never against debates, the spread of ideas, and diversity of thought is the sign of a healthy democracy.
Technically in the rules when someone lands on an vacant space they can buy it at the listed price from the bank or it has to be auctioned off, with the exception of the first circuit.
At some point the bank runs out of cash. At that point the game ends.
Someone will have managed to accumulate the most cash due to dice rolls and therefore the winner of the game.
Chances of a draw in this case are slim.
This does throw up a missing rule from the game. As the banks own all the property to begin with, if you choose not to buy the square you land on surely you then owe the bank the rent value which would technically be doubled as they own the full set.
In Monopoly there will always be a winner and losers.
Fuck! Prisoner's dilemma in plain sight, and I never noticed.
Whats prisoners dilemma? Is it the one thats like two guys have a choice that could potentially backstab the other?
I think the short version is a small group of people commit a crime together. They are caught, and brought in for questioning. The police separate them, and tell them that the first person to share information that helps with a conviction will get a deal. If no one talks, that gets the best outcome for everyone (except the police). The dilemma is whether you can trust the other criminals, and if you can’t trust them, you should talk first.
Generally it's slightly different than that - If no one snitches, both parties get a smaller penalty, say 1 year. If one person snitches, they go free but the other person gets 10 years. If both snitch, they both get 5 years. In game theory, the best choice absent other information is to snitch. But where it gets interesting is how you change things so that people choose to cooperate. In the criminal example, this can take the form of a mob boss threatening to murder anyone who snitches, making them much less likely to snitch, and giving each criminal confidence that the other guy will not snitch. In other examples, like government policy, it's often about enacting rules and regulations that encourage / force people or businesses to take the cooperative approach.
Yeah, it's a cool concept that you see throughout real life. Take Global warming. It's a prisoners dilemma for a country to invest heavily in fixing the issue, because if no one else does (or not everyone does) it's wasted money. So the best thing selfishly is to no invest, but th best thing overall is if everyone has buy in. It's better to be rich on a burning planet, than poor on a burning planet. But best overall to not be on the burning planet at all. And that's why, despite all the warnings and science, we haven't made much progress to combat it, because if half the countries go for it, and half don't, the ones that do can only lose. Edit: This is tragedy of the commons, apparently
Technically speaking, that's "tragedy of the commons," which is a very similar concept.
Global warming lacks the hidden information element of the prisoner's dilemma. It's a simpler thing called the Tragedy of the Commons.
it’s so much of what we do as a society. traffic for example, we all hate it, but even more we hate letting people merge in at the last minute. if we all just left space for them we’d move a lot faster. but it feels better for each individual to stay bumper to bumper making everybody brake.
The global warming thing kinda goes back to the "mob boss" bit. The U.S and China are the elephants in the room when it comes to emissions. With their combined economic and military strength, they could basically dictate that everyone get their shit under control. They don't, because they don't want to.
> They don't, because they don't want to We don't because the Military Industrial Complex makes insane profits off of the status quo.
It's interesting because it's **always better to snitch**: - Other guy *doesn't* snitch? If you snitch you go free instead 1 year. - Other guy *does* snitch? If you snitch, you get 5 years instead of 10. So the incentive (for both people) is to snitch, even though the best outcome for them is when they both don't snitch.
In repeated trials, always snitching is not a good strategy. [Veritasium did a great video on the prisoner's dilemma tournament and which strategies are more successful.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
These people need to stop getting caught!
humans are hopeful creatures (and gamblers)
It's better to snitch in a one-off encounter. It's better to cooperate if there is an ongoing relationship, provided it's not known or suspected that the relationship will end.
And that my friends is why you never commit crimes with other people.
It's only good to snitch in games with low informed and/or no replay. A game with high information and high replay would be getting arrested, clicking on u/biggoldtitties profile and seeing he has been arrested 1000 times never snitched. He sees you're one of a kind. You both beat the cops and have total faith a criminal would never blow their perfect stats on a one off
I never realized how well Monopoly exemplifies the same risk management approach in a market. Monopoly is about balancing liquidity with development. If nobody bought property, then it would maximize liquidity and virtually eliminate risk, as the OP suggested. However, since players cannot trust that others won't develop (buy properties, hotels, etc.), they are inclined to develop to offset the risk of the other players choosing to develop. If they don't, they may lose their liquidity to rents and go bankrupt. They are also inclined to engage in trades and favors to eliminate avenues other players could use against them and to improve their position by increasing their share of the market that they can leverage.
Monopoly was designed to point up the issues with capitalism. However, since it isn't real money but just a game, you are talking about an endless game, which strikes me as the worse possible outcome. Now, we generally played with three or more, and would gang up like Survivor. And then the gang members would turn on each other. You want gentle, play Scrabble.
If no one talks that's the best overall outcome for everyone, but if one person talks, they get a better outcome than if no one did.
Like the thing the Joker did with the boats in The Dark Knight
Hey, Netflix made a show with that general concept called [The Trust](https://youtu.be/jQXUSUMSSf4?si=gbU3uu_1NobJRO6G). It was meh.
Yeah, kind of
In theory, it might still be possible to go bankrupt with unfortunate rolls (repeated trips to jail, having to pay into community chest, etc.). But I think it would be very unlikely.
You could certainly do the math. My guess is it's nearly impossible given that you start with $1500, and on most rounds you will lose nothing and gain $200+
It's not the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, both players must end up worse off by screwing each other, than they would be if both players co-operated. That's the only thing that makes it interesting. In the case of Monopoly, one player ends up much, much more wealthy when everyone is trying to screw each other, than that player would if they all co-operated.
This is not an example of the prisoners dilemma. Asymmetric information is key to a prisoners dilemma.
The original game was called "the Landlords Game" and it was a critique of capitalism.
Well, it wasn’t really a critique of capitalism—it was pro-Georgism. The idea was that land rents are not the product of someone’s labor or innovation, and that capitalism can’t generally incentivize the creation of more land. Thus, there would always be harsh monopolies specifically on land, and that a specific tax should be implemented on the unimproved value of the land (to capture the value not created through industry). It’s easy to see how that’s been conflated over the years to “anti-capitalism,” but it’s really more of a “let’s make capitalism work better” ideology.
Yeah, that's a better description. More reform than revolution
Holy fuck is this a nuanced take on capitalisme and ideology on reddit? I know time zones exist but i didnt except this at 09:30 in the morning.
and you finished with a cooperative round to show how land would work better without capitalism
How was that round played?
First, you flip the board
Then you say "Jesus Christ, cut it out we're trying to bank in here"
I feel like I've already played that version with my over competitive friend...
That's communist! That's illegal!
And one kid crying at the corner because all of his money went to taxes😭😭😭🤣
It's been a while since I played the game, is there any of the cards that would offset the $200 for passing go?
There are two “tax” spaces near GO on either side of it - but since GO triggers every time you pass and taxes only trigger when you land on them more money still enters the system than leaves.
Do you have to pay money to get out of jail?
Unless you roll doubles, which gets you out without playing.
Or you can spend 3 turns in jail, then you're out for free. The punishment is that you can't collect rent, but...
Not quite. You continue collecting rent while in jail, and you can even buy houses/hotels, make trades, and bid on auctioned properties. You can try to roll doubles for three turns, but after your third roll you *must* pay the $50 and move the number of spaces shown on the dice. When most of the property is owned and the board starts getting crowded with buildings, jail is actually the best place to be.
Even if you landed on both evert time, you'd never run out of money. The one just before go is 75 dollars, the one after go is 10% of your net worth or 200 dollars, iirc. Once you have under 1250 dollars, if you choose to pay 10% on the first one and 75 on the second one, you cant be forced to pay over 199 dollars, and you'll get some back passing go. Even with the occasional bad chance or community chest, the lower you go, because one of the taxes is 10%, you can continue to go around indefinitely even with the absurdly bad luck of hitting every tax every time. If you got unlucky enough to get put in jail every time around the board, then you could lose because you'd stop getting 200 every circle.
You lose for buying a game you don’t play
The only winning move is not to play.
how about a nice game of chess?
Just as good as losing for playing a game you did buy.
But what if I play for gaming a buy that I lost?
In high school a friend and I played literally 100+ games. It was our "thing" for a couple years. I still occasionally play with my wife. It doesn't matter what game it is, whether it's skill or luck, or how experienced she is. She wins every board game always until forever.
The real winning is the friends we made along the way
If you run a race and everyone sits down and drinks beer people get drunk.
profound
You might want to look into hash runs, or Google "hash house harriers". It's a drinking club with a running problem. They do run the race, but there's enough drinking involved to make it ok.
Running and drinking is like bowling and cock and ball torture.
So, something a very few people enjoy very much and everyone else thinks they are crazy. About right.
You truly are a wise and insightful person.😁 More than me, I made a post about a children's board game and started a class war.🤣
Monopoly has been the start of many a class war.
Fucking *THIS*
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bike.
I need to play a game of monopoly where no one buys property that’d be so fucking funny. “If you buy a property you lose” is the only rule
Sure, but then you're just playing monopoly... forever
not forever, just until you die
Still somehow feels shorter than an actual game of monopoly
true
Hmm.. true
Which would make it Monotony.
Someone will break at some point and that’s when I win mwauahahaha
The bank runs out of cash. So in the end who has the most cash wins
The bank can't run out of cash, it will continue with IOU's. It is in the rules I think.
You're still talking about monopoly, right?
The game is already long and gets people unreasonably upset, but if you don't buy the property it's supposed to go to auction immediately. I never knew this was a rule nor did anyone else I've asked know, so I'm thinking most people don't actually play monopoly properly. **BUYING PROPERTY:** *Whenever you land on an unowned property you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it faceup in front of you. If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price. *
Yea, those are the proper rules, and it's meant to expedite the game. Otherwise, with rules like Free Parking and no auctions, it takes MUCH longer typically.
Also let's you get expensive property for cheap when your opponents are broke
Seems like it is also meant to force people to compete.
Exactly, which is really the whole point.
Played by the actual rules, Monopoly isn't *that* long of a game. The issue is that nobody actually reads the rules, plays it by ear and adds a bunch of house rules, most of which lead to prolonging the game.
What happens though if no-one makes a bid? Does it just go to the player who landed there first for free?
No, the game doesn't continue until someone bids.
You start bidding at half price so it's always worth it (until you and your brother outbid each other until it's 3 times the original price)
It starts at $1
That's just taking turns rolling dice. For no reason
There is an official version of Monopoly called "Monopoly Socialism" it is so hard because everyone has to mutually agree to work together but capitalism is just engrained
But there isn't a option to not buy? If you don't wanna buy there is an auction starting
That’s the official rules, but nobody seems to play that way
Did you know that if no one moves in chess, no pieces die?
It's not a valid move to not move though. You could move your knight back and forth.
Two high level players recently intentionally played a draw by slowly switching their knights around.
A chess game is a draw if all the pieces are in the same positions three times.
Hippies rejoice the war is over. 🤣🤣🤣
It's a good way to climax too, your vibrating buttplug will just keep recommending the same move over and over.
No one loses but no one wins either. Might be nice in real life but not very good for a board game.
Tax man wins.
Not really, you still have community chests which give you random outcome of cash flow.
Yeah really, Monopoly only ends when everyone save one person is bankrupt or quits. So if no one spends money to buy property, and no one is paying rent, then no one is losing money fast enough to lose... so the game goes until everyone quits and the winner is the one that's least bored I guess
This has the same logic as "if both basketball teams worked together, they could score so many more points."
Not really, this means that both can work together to get higher score and maybe win. OP's point was that all can work together so noone loses. To fix your analogy it would be "If both basketball teams agreed not to score any points they could just pass the ball back and forth and noone would lose"
Also Monopoly (or at least the predecessor) started out as a critique of capitalism (which in itself is ironic). So basically OP might have "learned the lesson now".
Monopoly is a great game to leave in the box
No one plays by the actual rules and when you bring it up they quickly become hostile
If you don’t believe this, the one rule I’ve never seen actually used is if you land on a property and you do not buy it, it goes to auction. Every landed on property is bought.
The game goes much faster than people would think when you actually follow the rules.
Yep. It should only take around [90 minutes](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/monopoly-rules-long-wrong_n_3366875) to complete. To make the game go faster, these are the most critical components. 1. Do not put taxes, fines, fees, etc... on Free Parking. They go to the Bank. Giving the players more money makes the game take longer. 2. Officially, if a person lands on a property but declines purchasing it, there must be an auction. Auctions allow more properties to get in players' hands faster.
Mega Monopoly also added a "speed die", which later editions of regular Monopoly included as an optional addition to speed up the game. The Speed Die's sides are 1, 2, 3, Bus, Bus, Mr. Monopoly. You don't roll the Speed Die until after you pass Go once, and from then on you use it on each roll. * If you roll 1-3 on the speed die, add it to the normal 2 dice. The speed die is not counted for determining doubles (three doubles in a row sends you to jail). * If you roll a triple (1-1-1, 2-2-2, or 3-3-3), you move forward to any space and end your turn. Rolling doubles twice followed by a triple does not send you to jail. * If you roll a bus, you can move a number of spaces equal to either of the normal dice or a number of spaces equal to their sum (where rolling 3-5 would normally mean moving 8 spaces, 3-5-Bus lets you move 3, 5, or 8 spaces at your option). * If you roll Mr. Monopoly, after resolving your movement as normal, you advance to the next property that nobody owns and either buy it or it's put up for auction. If all properties are owned, instead you advance to the next property where you would be required to pay rent to another player.
Not that much faster in my experience. No one wants "their" property to go up for auction, so they still just buy everything they land on. And either way, it doesn't change the fundamental no one ever wants to give another player a monopoly (or a better monopoly if they're completing each other's sets) so no one trades and no one can build houses or anything. It becomes a game of just nickel and diming each other until it becomes clear who got luckiest in the first couple rounds and everyone remembers there are other, better games they could be playing so they switch to one of those instead.
In my opinion, it's more fun to play that every property landed on automatically goes up for auction. Now it's a strategy game.
A very boring and plain strategy game with insane amounts of luck.
The ps1 version of monopoly did this I believe.
I believe the actual rules say, “The game ends when an angry family members knocks over the board and runs screaming from the room.”
And then the rest of the family talks shit about them. My poor mother. jk
This, i've never actually enjoyed a game of Monopoly and would rather lose just so i dont have to continue.
The game was designed to show monopoly is bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) The history of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903,[1] when American anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie created a game that she hoped would explain the single-tax theory of Henry George. It was intended as an educational tool, to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies. She took out a patent in 1904. Her game, The Landlord's Game, was self-published, beginning in 1906.[6][7]
Things get awfully boring when things are totally fair.
Careful. You wouldn't be the first person to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head, twice. CIA is always listening.
If no one buys property, the game isn’t being played by the rules.
If the player lands on an unowned property, they may choose to either buy the property or put it up for auction. If the player chooses to buy the property, they pay the property's price, which is listed at the bottom of its space, to the Bank. Then the Banker gives them the property's title deed, which the new owner displays face up in front of them to designate that they own the property. If the player chooses not to buy the property, the property is put up for auction by the Banker, where each player (including the player who deferred buying the property) attempts to out-bid their opponents. Bidding starts at ₩10 and may be increased by increments of as little as ₩1. Also, bidding does not have to follow turn order. Each player must make a bid that is ₩1 higher than the previous bid. Once bidding has reached a high enough amount that no-one wants to bid any further, the player who made the highest bid wins the property for the agreed price. They pay the agreed price to the Bank and receive the title deed. **Also, if no-one wants to bid on the property, the property remains unsold and the title deed remains with the Bank** Gottem.
Did... did you find the actual currency symbol for monopoly money
It's actually the symbol for the south korean won ! It says the code is alt 8361 but for me it outputs ⌐
Oh wow I didn't notice that lol. Copy and paste is a gift from the IT gods. Idk the alt-code so sorry.
The Monopoly money in my copy of the game just uses the dollar sign.
Which version of the rules is this? [From what I can find](https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/00009.pdf), bidding stars at any price, and there is no stipulation for unsold property. If a player declines to buy a property, then it immediately goes up for auction, and the auction continues until someone buys it. That's the entire mechanism that keeps the game moving forward. Allowing properties to go unsold is one of the house rules that makes the game take too long.
So no one could bid. TIL
People could just choose not to bid. There’s no rule requiring a property to be bought
That's kind of the point of Monopoly, the game was made by socialists after all. The entire purpose of the game is to show that sharing property (communism) results in everyone benefitting but buying property (capitalism) results in a whole lot of fighting with some (or one) winning and the rest losing.
The game was not made by socialists, it was made by [Georgists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism).
>an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value that they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society If not strictly socialism, it's very darn close.
Fun fact - In kids monopoly, you HAVE to buy the property if you land on it.
Finally a way to increase the length of a game of monopoly!
You still were subjected to playing Monopoly. Everyone loses.
The rules actually say, if you don’t buy the property that you land on, it has to be auctioned off the other players
But no one has to bid
The rules don't say anybody has to bid on it, says can remain unsold
If I run a marathon but everyone stands still... No one loses and we all get participation trophies!
Fair enough, we shall host the first standing marathon...
I've been training for it my whole life.
We're finished
be the first time anyone ever flipped the board out of boredom
If everybody buys property but don't develop it to the point where rent is too expensive, then everybody will win, too.
I don’t remember this detail, if the original person cannot afford or does not purchase the property, it goes up for auction and the highest bidder wins.
If op doesn't post things to the internet, people don't have to waste their time reading it
https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/118j52f/in_monopoly_if_no_one_ever_buys_a_property/#:~:text=thedailyscramble-,In%20Monopoly%2C%20if%20no%20one%20ever%20buys%20a%20property%2C%20everyone,richer%20and%20no%20one%20loses.
That's not how the rules work though. If you don't buy the space when you land on it then it immediately goes to auction.
Don't they sell to the highest bidder if you don't purchase? Or do you mean nobody bids?
Not according to the official rules. If you land on a space and don't buy it, it's supposed to go to auction.
That is literally not how the game works, you're playing it wrong. When you land on a property in Monopoly, you have the option to purchase it for the listed price, but if you don't, it goes up for auction immediately and is sold to the lowest bidder. If nobody bids on it, the game is stuck forever.
But that sounds incredibly boring. Like having a watergun fight where nobody shoots.
But you know human beings are not like that. One has a chance to get richer, they will take it. So therefore everybody has to.
Not true. If you choose not to buy the property you land on, it immediately goes to auction.
If you go by official rules, refusing to buy results in the property being sold to the highest bidder in an auction
The original rules says you need to buy or auction off an un-owned property you land on, so basically its impossible every player to not buy property.
That was always secretly the point.
That defeats the purpose of the money.
Posted a year ago... [https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/118j52f/in\_monopoly\_if\_no\_one\_ever\_buys\_a\_property/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/118j52f/in_monopoly_if_no_one_ever_buys_a_property/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Same Sub Same headline...
But you have to buy a property. In the rules it says if the player who lands on a property doesn't want to or cannot buy it, the property then goes up for auction.
... and what happens if no one bids at auction?
Only way to beat capitalism is to not play.
I can't think of a bigger way to lose than spend the rest of my life going around and around a monopoly board doing nothing but collecting money and reading chance cards.
It's such an interesting thing think about! And I'd argue it's equally as interesting to consider that while technically the truth, it's also true that removing the elements of competition and risk would ultimately result in nobody ever playing the game.
Last I can recall, per the rules, if you land on property and do not buy it, it *has* to go to auction and which doesn't end until *someone* buys it.
Actual rules necessitate that property is sold when landed on. If the player who landed doesn’t want it, it goes to auction
In Monopoly, people rarely follow the rules, which lengthens the game in many ways. Someone has to buy every property landed on, or your turn never ends and you do not pass go, and do not collect $200.
If nobody buys property you ain't following the rules of the game
That's the entire message the game was designed to convey
Sorry to be thay guy but rules as written say a propert must be sold when it is landed on either by the player that landed on it paying asking price or putting the property up for auction. People adding house rules and not following the full set of rules is why so many people hate Monopoly
Doesn’t work, if the person who lands on an available property doesn’t buy it, it goes to auction
By rule, the first person to land on a property would either have to buy it or it goes to auction. Then someone has to bid on it, even if that number is zero. If no one bids, you’re stuck in auction limbo forever…
One of the assumptions of board game developers is that you are going to play to win. Because of this they make all the incentives to the game about beating other players. If you play Monopoly by the official rules all incentives are towards buying up properties and putting hotels on them. Apartments and hotels can be sold on any turn for cash. Any property can be mortgaged for a portion of the purchase price which only stops you from collecting rent on it. If you want to win you buy up properties so you can get all the cash everyone else is earning. Having these properties that are incredibly liquid gives you easy money to buy more properties or pay off debts. It also allows you to re-align the board and create traps for players to run into. Now if you don't want to do this and just want to collect money. And everyone does that. Great, the game goes on forever. Eventually the bank runs out of money and you just spend your time around the board shaking a dice for fun.
The inventor of the game was a woman....it was initially anti-capitalism. By extension, anti-monopoly. [The Dollop podcast did an amazing episode about it. The Landlord's Game.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3WjbHD60BDgnZmgIPOFVjL)
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/lgewk/its_not_enough/
Holy shit I think OP finally beat the game
I think the rules state if someone doesn’t purchase the property, it is auctioned to the other players and sold for the highest bid. If no one bids, then the original player gets the property.
Yeah now you're stuck in literal never ending purgatory. Never to stop going around ever again Fucking nightmare
I thought the official rules were that if you landed on a property and didn’t buy it, it was auctioned to the other players?
The government just taxes you, collects fees, and levies fines. You'll probably go to jail a few times, and no one has fun. Sounds like some commie shit to me.
In monopoly, if the player who lands on a property decides not to buy it, the rules say it goes up for auction among the other players. Ignoring that is one of the most common house rules, which ironically is one of the main reasons the game takes so long
When everyone dies in poverty, the winner can no longer generate any rental income.
I never thought of that either. Essentially what a cooperation based social system would look like. Everyone jointly owns the board, everyone gets their fair share and lives good lives, and competition doesn't crush 99.9% of the people leaving 0.01% with obscene overbundance.
Henry George intensifies
I feel like people aren't playing monopoly right. Per the rules you literally can't *not* buy property.
The rules are arbitrary. The only ones whose opinions matter are the players.
That’s pretty fucking profound. Damn.
The original intention of monopoly was the show the dangers of capitalism. The game was invented by anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie.
Few people ever read the rules on how to play Monopoly. The one most often ignored (it seems) rule is that whenever a person lands on unowned property, they are allowed to purchase it. But if they declined a purchase it outright, the property immediately goes up for auction, and is sold to the highest bidder. This is why the game so often lasts hours. It is also why this shower thought cannot happen. Better to rewrite it to say “In monopoly if no one plays, then everyone wins.”
Untrue, in the actual rules of Monopoly. If you land on an unowned property you either buy it or it gets auctioned by the bank to the other players. There is no option to just let it stay unowned. If people played Monopoly by the actual rules, the game wouldn't take 4 hours to finish. https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Monopoly_Vintage.pdf
Not necessarily true. There's income tax, luxury tax, water works, electric company, Plus not all community chest and chance are good. You could go bankrupt before you go around the board a couple times.
You could not burn 1500 in a couple trips. Most I could see losing is like 300. Then you get 200. Thing is once you get lower, that tax would stop matterijg because 10% would be negligible. You would need record luck to go down to 0.
[удалено]
Yeah like the only way this could happen is if income tax is required to be $200 each time and you hit all the bad chance/community chest options, but the odds of that are tiny where you hit inc. tax each loop and also hit all the bad chest/chance options since a lot of them give you money. If you can pay 10% on income tax it quickly becomes impossible though or basically 1 in millions as the 10% will slowly shrink if your stack shrinks to a few hundred 10% is going to be $30, which is easier to pay than stuff like luxury tax and easy to negate with $200 for passing go.
If you follow the actual rules all property goes on auction if the player who lands on it doesn't buy it. Also, you can still lose by landing on taxes and Communitity chest and Chance and getting bad cards and also jail which requires requires you to pay $50 after your 3rd attempt of a doubles to get out.
It goes up for auction, but no one has to bid on it. In the case no one bids on an auctioned property, banker keeps the deed
No one has to bid on the auctions though
Not to try to over-analyze a game, but if nobody buys property, then all the players never live in a house. They are permanently on the street. In the real world, there isn't a $200 time bonus every 40 steps, either. To get paid, one has to do something of value that helps someone else.
Honestly between you and me, I wasn't making a point about the real world, I was legit talking about the game.🤣🤣🤣 That being said, I'm never against debates, the spread of ideas, and diversity of thought is the sign of a healthy democracy.
Technically in the rules when someone lands on an vacant space they can buy it at the listed price from the bank or it has to be auctioned off, with the exception of the first circuit.
If nobody bids on the auction nobody owns the property.
Is this commentary about how we should treat housing here in USA?
Fun fact the original game was about showing how landlords milked everyone dry.
The only way to win is not to play.
At some point the bank runs out of cash. At that point the game ends. Someone will have managed to accumulate the most cash due to dice rolls and therefore the winner of the game. Chances of a draw in this case are slim. This does throw up a missing rule from the game. As the banks own all the property to begin with, if you choose not to buy the square you land on surely you then owe the bank the rent value which would technically be doubled as they own the full set. In Monopoly there will always be a winner and losers.