Mkay, so you disagree with my definition? Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
i.e. 0 = sum<i=1 to N> { w_i * delta_i } where sum of w_i is 1 and delta is the utility or gains/losses of the participants. In other words (and now I quote from myself):
You can not deduce a zero sum nature game (or, for that matter, competitive or non-competitive nature) from a single transaction, rather than from the total value in the system. Let's take the following example:
- Alice sells her share of his company at IPO for 100.
- Bob buys the share for 100 at IPO
- Cathy buys the share for 150 1 year later
As you can see, Bob made 50 and yet Alice has not lost 50 because she her gains or losses are external to the system (she did not buy her share but rather she opened a company, got clients and has future cashflow that she's pricing at IPO). Since value is added from the outside, it's not a constant sum game, and thus not a zero sum game (since zero-sum is a a subset of constant sum games). As a side note, non-constant sum game can still be competitive like the stock market.
Also, you can see how that is different from a simple bet which is distributive by nature, right? A disconnected derivative market is such a market, so there your loss is my gain unless, as I said, you are integrating value from other sources (you know, the usual "you buy an option, I sell an option and both of us win because we hedged delta differently")
PS. Not trying to insult your knowledge or intelligence, really, but application of game theory to the markets is very tricky. There are several good papers on it that come to a conclusion
Last edited:
