Saturday, May 10, 2014

WSJ: Basic Understanding of Game Theory and Incentives

"Here is how he (David Lee Roth) tells the story in a Vimeo video. By the early 1980s, Van Halen had become one of the biggest rock bands in history. Their touring contract carried a 53-page rider that laid out technical and security specs as well as food and beverage requirements. The "Munchies" section demanded potato chips, nuts, pretzels and "M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)."
When the M&M clause found its way into the press, it seemed like a typical case of rock-star excess, of the band "being abusive of others simply because we could," Mr. Roth said. But, he explained, "the reality is quite different."

Van Halen's live show boasted a colossal stage, booming audio and spectacular lighting. All this required a great deal of structural support, electrical power and the like. Thus the 53-page rider, which gave point-by-point instructions to ensure that no one got killed by a collapsing stage or a short-circuiting light tower. But how could Van Halen be sure that the local promoter in each city had read the whole thing and done everything properly?

Cue the brown M&M's. As Roth tells it, he would immediately go backstage to check out the bowl of M&M's. If he saw brown ones, he knew the promoter hadn't read the rider carefully—and that "we had to do a serious line check" to make sure that the more important details hadn't been botched either.

And so it was that David Lee Roth and King Solomon both engaged in a fruitful bit of game theory—which, narrowly defined, is the art of beating your opponent by anticipating his next move. (read more)

11 comments:

Paddy O said...

I cited this story in an academic paper, with a footnote pointing to the Snopes discussion. Here's the sentence I cited:

"Thus, the Law itself is a system of obedience that was intended to validate trust: the people who trust God are obedient, God trusts the people who are obedient."

There's more to the Law than this, but there are elements of it, that really do suggest attention to details was itself a concern.

ricpic said...

Joan Crawford: No wire hangers!

David Lee Roth: No brown M&M's!

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

In law school, the professor I had for Evidence explained the significance of the second woman having the benefit of the first woman's answer.

That professor was smart as a whip, and her father was a rabbi, so I had 100 percent confidence in her explanation.

I really wish I could remember what it was.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

"Thus, the Law itself is a system of obedience that was intended to validate trust: the people who trust God are obedient, God trusts the people who are obedient."

There must have been a good reason for stating "In God we trust" on the mighty dollar.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

It's not GOLD that keeps us afloat... it's GOLD after dropping the L. Drop the L and gold rises... or something.

I havent googled it.

Chip S. said...

The rationalization of "trial by fire" at the link is incoherent. Apparently, the proof that it "worked" is that a bunch of people "confessed" to avoid being tortured. WTF?

And if priests were rigging the outcomes, then they must not have had as much faith in God as the poor bastards who let themselves be tortured b/c they were innocent. But hey, only 37.5% of those guys actually harmed. No way to tell, of course, how many of the miraculous cases were helped along by donations to the Church.

When I'm in the mood for these kinds of stories, I prefer Kipling to Levitt & Dubner.

chickelit said...

@Lem: I just gave David Lee Roth his own tag back at my post a few weeks ago. I'm impressed with his articulation. Somebody to keep an eye on?

Maybe give this post the tag too?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

If i may strech the 'incentive' topic in the Godly direction...

Have you noticed how Go just happens to rhime with big mighty things... ie Google, Gold, Good, G force Gravity,

A Phonestheme?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I got to get back to work.

chickelit said...

Obama tried to put the second "o" in Good."

At least according to his early admirers.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

This article essay is from the Freakeconomics outfit.

I've listened to them on NPR on ocassions. They are really good. Better than Vox. For sure.