Answer to the Pirate Riddle

Well, I was disappointed that nobody was commenting on my blogs, so I added a hit counter. I was gratified to see my hit counts going up pretty quickly (Even after I modified it so that it wouldn't count my OWN hits - which were also going up pretty quickly because I kept refreshing the page to see if my hit counter was going up). Unfortunately for me, I got one of those FANCY hit counters that keeps track of unique hits, and discovered that for the most part, I still only have two readers. And since those two readers have been kind enough to give me a pity response to my pirate riddle, I figure it's time to give out the answer.


For the sake of making the explanation easiest to understand, we will call number the pirates 1-5 with the shortest being #1, etc...

There are two keys to the problem

Key #1: You have to work this problem backwards -
Key #2: Remember that because a majority vote is the only ACCEPTABLE vote, then a TIE vote is UNACCEPTABLE

- First think about what Pirate #5 will do if it gets down to just himself and Pirate #4. Since a tie vote is unacceptable, he can veto any proposal that Pirate #4 puts forth. Therefore, being a greedy pirate, he will accept nothing less than 100 coins. Therefore, one can assume for the time being that Pirate#5 will strive to get down to 2 pirates and will vote against ANY proposal put porth by any other pirates.

- Pirate #4 recognizes what would happen if it got down to 2, and desperately does not want this to happen. So one can assume that he will vote IN FAVOR of any proposal that gives him at least 1 coin.

- Pirate #3 also recognizes #4's predicament. He understands that if he can get it down to just 3 pirates, he can give himself 99 coins and still secure the vote of #4 with a single coin. #3 desperately wants to be in this situation - Therefore, we can assume for the time being that Pirate #3 will vote against any proposal by #1 and #2.

- Like Pirate #4, Pirate #2 recognizes how much it sucks to be an even number. He knows that the only way to secure approval would be to give #3 his 99 coins and #4 his 1 coin. Since that doesn't really do him any good, he doesn't want to be in this position. Therefore, he will vote for ANY proposal by #1 that also nets him at least 1 coin.

- The logical conclusion therefore is that Pirate #1 can keep 98 coins for himself, and secure the votes of #2 and #4 with 1 coin each. In reality, #3 and #5 (being extremely logical pirates) recognize that this is how it will play out, so they lower their price to 1 coin each. So #1 can keep 98 coins himself and give 1 coin each to any two pirates of his choosing.

The moral of the story
You are probably thinking to yourself right now, "The moral of this story is that Big A likes to spend a lot of time thinking about useless crap" or " that Big A thinks he's soooooo smart" and while you would be right on both counts, you would be missing the real point.

Because that is not the end of the story. First of all, thanks to a ridiculous scheme, Pirate #5 had ALL of the power - except that his power hinges on the fact that the rest of the pirates recognize his power. If the other pirates are stupid, then they immediately get offended, feed him to the fishes and worry about the consequences later. They will continue fighting amongst themselves until the last pirate is left with all the MONEY, but too weak to defend himself from other more resourceful pirates or vengeful villagers hoping to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

Even if the Pirates are not stupid, and they do hold to their agreement, they will be resentful of Pirate #1 - Eventually, they will try to take it again. Although he CAN take 98 coins, he would be wise not to do so.

There are a lot of parallels in the real world, but the one that really got me thinking was the current "labor" dispute between the NFL and the players association. ( I put the word "labor" in quotes, because it is after all - just a game) Now generally, if I ever take sides in a labor dispute, it is usually with the employer. In a free market society, if an employee does not like his job, he should find another one. If he does not have the skills necessary for a better job, then he should do what he needs to acquire the skills. He is certainly free to quit his job, but should not be free to indimidate others into doing so, or to try to prevent others who are perfectly willing to do his job from taking over. However in the dispute between the NFL and the players association, I recognize that it is unique. I have also come to the realization that I don't care. I don't watch a football game because I think the owners are successful business men, nor do I watch the game because I think the players are treated fairly. I watch the game because I think it is entertaining. The owners technically hold all the power here, and have the right to pay the players whatever they are willing to take - however, if the product on the field is not as good, then I won't watch it - and I certainly won't support it with my money. And if there is a stoppage of play, I may never watch it again. There are many other demands on my time and my entertainment dollar that will simply take it's place. The owners and players are soo busy fighting over a couple of percentage points that they are both seriously risking losing it all.