Forty six years ago this was the second thing I ever programmed on a computer. It was a TRS-80 model 3, and initially Quick BASIC was the only software I had for it. My first project was a todo app. The second was a Monopoly simulation that just ran around the board to estimate which squares were landed on most often. It worked, and the high I got from that addicted me and kicked off a coding career. That damn computer should have come with a warning label.
They don't say what the strategy is in the comments (duh) but I seem to remember a similar study from years ago saying the optimal strategy was to always buy if you can.
Meta, but one rule I was surprised to learn: if someone doesn't buy a property when they land on it, it is immediately auctioned off by the bank.
You can do the official short game rules, but that is still slow. We go further, when we play we randomly deal out all the properties then buy trade amongst ourselves. This way we start with all the properties owned and you can start building houses immediately. Ymmv
A couple Thanksgivings ago, I played with a couple of alpha finance types that I'm related to at a distance of several marriages. It's certainly a more interesting game the way they play it, no doubt helped by everyone being amply lubricated and some enthusiastic brotherly backstabbing. Whether it's more fun or not probably depends on exactly how much you care about the outcome. It still took the better part of a couple hours though.
It feels like making "Where the tokens land was checked against the table published in Scientific American in 1996 (Illinois Avenue: 3.18% published, 3.19% in my simulation)." a key point of the investigation doesn't see like a human choice
We recently picked up Monopoly with a new generation of players, and the flaws of the design were now apparent to adults. I think this could be a significant improvement.
Uh, isn't that the official rules? If a player lands on an unowned property, it goes to auction[0] EDIT: if the player doesn't buy it for the price printed on the board.
Corrected. Thanks. So the OP is playing with a variant where the original player landing on it doesn't get the first bite at the apple at the printed price?
So the conclusion is « buy everything even with borrowed money, but anyway it’s mostly a game of luck and even with the best strategy you’ll loose most of the time».
Not a bad model it seems, curious to test against a « I never want to die strategy », where everyone saves enough to keep playing, which is what mostly happens in real life too.
In the end, it aligns with YC and the startup model to try the all in for a project that will make you win disproportionately.
Of course you will lose a game of chance most of the time. Over a long enough timeline the chance of winning probably comes out to evenly distributed. Therefore your best bet is to play with only one other person ever so that you have a 50% win rate
AlphaZero (Google's chess bot) famously started with no 'book knowledge' (e.g. ideas on how to play chess), instead, it learned by playing against itself many, many times over.
Has anyone done something similar to that with Monopoly? (by contrast, the technique used in this video is much more basic; it comes up with some specific rules a player will use, then has those bots play eachother)
I have thought it couple of times, most recently after this video.
I so want to make it since I feel all these videos tend to lack two things the zero-style would offer.
One: it would offer no human assumptions.
Two: more importantly it should and could include the trading part.
(the op's video had some, but it felt really really limited from what I gathered)
It is really rare to see trading to be implemented.
Yeah, it is the hard part but in competetive monopoly, it is big part.
I am yet to figure both input/output spaces for it.
As soon as I figure them, I probably will do proper zero-style ai for many games.
Isn't trading always blocked? Whenever you would allow someone to build a complete Color it's better not to allow it, and whenever you also would it's only advantageous if your color is stronger than the other thus the other party should never agree.
Any other exchange becomes pointless as you won't be completing a color anyways.
You seem to reason in terms of trying at all costs to block the other players, not to maximize your gain. I agree the ultimate goal is to do better than all the others, but the tactics to get there may involve temporarily favoring other players in win-win exchanges to grow quicker, or to block a third player already far ahead, etc.
Forty six years ago this was the second thing I ever programmed on a computer. It was a TRS-80 model 3, and initially Quick BASIC was the only software I had for it. My first project was a todo app. The second was a Monopoly simulation that just ran around the board to estimate which squares were landed on most often. It worked, and the high I got from that addicted me and kicked off a coding career. That damn computer should have come with a warning label.
They don't say what the strategy is in the comments (duh) but I seem to remember a similar study from years ago saying the optimal strategy was to always buy if you can.
Meta, but one rule I was surprised to learn: if someone doesn't buy a property when they land on it, it is immediately auctioned off by the bank.
Many people play without the auction rule (hence, they don't even know it exists).
> I seem to remember a similar study from years ago saying the optimal strategy was to always buy if you can.
The optimal rule is a little different: don't sit on cash until a housing crisis.
Just like in a real-life business, sitting on cash that could be working for you is a bad idea.
Another interesting strategy was to not upgrade to hotels in order to create a housing crisis by using up all the houses
Monopoly Junior works like this already - you MUST buy a property you land on, if you can't buy it for any reason the game ends.
It really works when playing with kids, but I noticed that the consequence of it in most games is that the player who goes first usually wins.
> the player who goes first usually wins
That is the point the game is meant to teach. Literally.
The original game developed by Lizzie Magie is a didactical game to illustrate the problems of monopolies accumulating ever more wealth.
It is crazy that we seemingly forgot the message and keep playing this game. Even on a purely “is this fun” level there are so much better games.
I got that message loud and clear when playing this the first time.
I thought the best Monopoly strategy was not to play.
Before posting, I always do a ctrl+F, and I was glad to see my search for "not to play" found a hit.
I find a game of Monopoly so boring and it takes too long to play.
And also I was thinking of WarGames.
You can do the official short game rules, but that is still slow. We go further, when we play we randomly deal out all the properties then buy trade amongst ourselves. This way we start with all the properties owned and you can start building houses immediately. Ymmv
How about a nice game of chess?
WarGames (1983)
A couple Thanksgivings ago, I played with a couple of alpha finance types that I'm related to at a distance of several marriages. It's certainly a more interesting game the way they play it, no doubt helped by everyone being amply lubricated and some enthusiastic brotherly backstabbing. Whether it's more fun or not probably depends on exactly how much you care about the outcome. It still took the better part of a couple hours though.
It's surprising that a content creator would put this much work into a video and then use an AI narration.
Did you switch on YT auto translation by accident?
well how much work did he really put into it?
It feels like making "Where the tokens land was checked against the table published in Scientific American in 1996 (Illinois Avenue: 3.18% published, 3.19% in my simulation)." a key point of the investigation doesn't see like a human choice
I enjoy a monopoly variant where every property landed on causes an auction regardless of who landed on it.
Oh, I like this a lot!
We recently picked up Monopoly with a new generation of players, and the flaws of the design were now apparent to adults. I think this could be a significant improvement.
Uh, isn't that the official rules? If a player lands on an unowned property, it goes to auction[0] EDIT: if the player doesn't buy it for the price printed on the board.
[0] https://officialgamerules.org/game-rules/monopoly/
No. Only if the player declines to buy it.
Corrected. Thanks. So the OP is playing with a variant where the original player landing on it doesn't get the first bite at the apple at the printed price?
So the conclusion is « buy everything even with borrowed money, but anyway it’s mostly a game of luck and even with the best strategy you’ll loose most of the time».
Not a bad model it seems, curious to test against a « I never want to die strategy », where everyone saves enough to keep playing, which is what mostly happens in real life too.
In the end, it aligns with YC and the startup model to try the all in for a project that will make you win disproportionately.
Of course you will lose a game of chance most of the time. Over a long enough timeline the chance of winning probably comes out to evenly distributed. Therefore your best bet is to play with only one other person ever so that you have a 50% win rate
my takeaway was "invest everything in everything you can" instead of "all in in one project"
AlphaZero (Google's chess bot) famously started with no 'book knowledge' (e.g. ideas on how to play chess), instead, it learned by playing against itself many, many times over.
Has anyone done something similar to that with Monopoly? (by contrast, the technique used in this video is much more basic; it comes up with some specific rules a player will use, then has those bots play eachother)
I have thought it couple of times, most recently after this video. I so want to make it since I feel all these videos tend to lack two things the zero-style would offer.
One: it would offer no human assumptions.
Two: more importantly it should and could include the trading part. (the op's video had some, but it felt really really limited from what I gathered)
It is really rare to see trading to be implemented. Yeah, it is the hard part but in competetive monopoly, it is big part.
I am yet to figure both input/output spaces for it. As soon as I figure them, I probably will do proper zero-style ai for many games.
Isn't trading always blocked? Whenever you would allow someone to build a complete Color it's better not to allow it, and whenever you also would it's only advantageous if your color is stronger than the other thus the other party should never agree.
Any other exchange becomes pointless as you won't be completing a color anyways.
You seem to reason in terms of trying at all costs to block the other players, not to maximize your gain. I agree the ultimate goal is to do better than all the others, but the tactics to get there may involve temporarily favoring other players in win-win exchanges to grow quicker, or to block a third player already far ahead, etc.
In the second case, the stronger color can be offset by giving the weaker color more cash / other properties.
It'd be interesting if the strategy would change without the auction rule. I don't think I've ever played with that.
[flagged]