Posted on 07/02/2009 10:27:17 AM PDT by decimon
>
If there are only 2 animals, A and B, and we assume that a predator can only realistically attack one at a time, then the probability of A being attacked is 1/2 in a single round of predation. So, in a one-shot game, if B is attacked, A’s best strategy is to cut and run, since helping B may result in injury or death.
But, if the same game is played over and over (that is, if they run the risk of being attacked often, as is the case in real life), then A’s best strategy is to help out B. This might seem incongruous, but it isn’t.
If B dies in the first attack, then A’s probability of being attacked in the next round is 100%! If he has a less than 100% chance of dying by way of helping B in the first attack than he is better off helping B since on the next round he’ll still have only a 50% chance of being attacked. 50% is certainly better than 100%!
>
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificblogging.com ...
Just outshoot him... :-)
According to the article, that sentiment holds true, until you run out of hunting buddies.
Or get out run by a hunting buddy.
I remember game theory from statistical economics. Good way of predicting something in a controlled environment.
For instance, when the writer says if B dies, then A has a 100% chance of dying next, he is taking into account that A didnt leave the area. If A gets far enough away that the predator wont chase him, then he has a 100% chance of living now.
Its dangerous to use false situations to prove a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.