Reciprocity of a Drinking Game

Yesterday evening, my friends played a drinking game before heading out to the bar. Because I wasn't planning on going out, but still wanted to enjoy their company, I decided to monitor the tendencies of their drinking game.

The rules of the game were pretty simple. It is a game that involves cards and decisions by the players. When cards are dealt, players will either have to "take," or drink for a specified amount of time based on the round, or "give" a specified amount of time to drink based on the round.

The first couple rounds go swiftly. Cards are dealt one-by-one to players in a counterclockwise order. The cards are dealt face up and in each round a player receives only one card.

During the first round, players are asked

 to guess whether the card is red or black. If they guess correctly, they can "give" the value associated with the first round (2 seconds) to another player, but if they are wrong, then they have to "take" those 2 seconds. In the second round, players are asked if their next card will be higher or lower than the card they already have. The same rules apply if they are right or wrong, except now it extends to 4 seconds. 

The third round asks players to determine whether the card will be inside or outside of the range of cards that they have. For instance, if a player has drawn a 7 of spades and an 8 of hearts, it is likely that the next card will be outside of the range, whereas, a player with a 2 of diamonds and a king of clubs would probably guess inside. The same rules apply for being right or wrong, except now it is 6 seconds. 

The fourth and final round of the preliminary rounds asks players to guess which suit their card will be. If players are correct, they can "give" 8 seconds, but have to "take" 8 seconds if they are wrong.

After the preliminary round, the game enters into a phase called, Fireworks. The picture above gives the breakdown of how Fireworks is setup. As you can see there are several cards used in Fireworks, all face down to begin with. There are two columns of cards, one "take" and one "give" that increase in their intensity from 2 seconds to 8 seconds, similar to the opening rounds (this is represented in the illustration by the number following the word Card). On the wings are four more cards that raise the level of intensity. On the left side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for half a beer. On the right side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for a whole beer. The order in which Fireworks occur is by starting with "Card 2" in the Take Column, and then "Card 2" in the Give Column. This continues through "Card 8" for both Take and Give. Then Take and Give is done for Half and then Full.

The way in which this portion of the game works, is if any of the four cards you received during the preliminary round match in value (8's, Kings, Jacks, 4's, etc.) to those that get flipped, you must "take" or "give" depending on the card's designation. 

It's a phenomenal game and a lot of fun to play or watch. 

I thought it would be interesting to map out some of the decisions that were made in terms of "giving" drinking quotas to other people. Though this is a friendly game, harsh decisions have to be made at times as to who has to drink. I've also considered that as the game progresses, participants are most likely becoming further inebbriated, which may effect their decision-making processes, but this effect is inherent to the system. I was interested if any patterns would emerge based on some sort of reciprocity, and as I expected, something quite concrete can be deduced from this very simple but telling game about social networks.

• Explanation

Above is a visual representation of the decisions made by participants in their first game of play recorded. There were five total participants, each depicted as a "Smiling Face." The boxes either above, below, or to the side of the faces are how I will make reference to distinctive actions made by that player. The visual representation is supposed to give scope as to the actual seating arrangements of the individuals playing the game, which I assert makes significant impact on the decisions of the players. I was seated between JG and SS and was not participating in the game.

I propose that seating is the most important factor determining decisions in the game. Starting from the left side: ZS was sitting on a chair by himself. JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS were sitting on a couch together. MK and MB were sitting on a seperate couch perpendicular to JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS, facing ZS. There is a rectangular table between the groups.

There are clear trends that can be noticed from the outset. SS and ZS engaged in a "war" during the game, consistently being given decisions (which is based on luck), and consistently "giving" the designated value to one another. SS and ZS were also seated quite far away from one another, at least on opposite sides of the table. 

SS was given several opportunities to "give," but made them consistently towards ZS. He could have just as easily "spread the wealth" by "giving" to JG, MK, and MB, but chose to direct his efforts to a member farthest away from him.

There are several underlying causes of this. One consideration is mere comradary. ZS and SS may be good buddies and want to get each other "wasted" to have a fun night at the bar. However, all the individuals playing the game are all trying to get "wasted" and are equally good buddies. This is not a qualifying argument. 

Another cause could possibly be based on the Feedback effect. As SS makes more decisions to "give" to ZS, ZS comes back at SS and "gives" to him in order to "level the score." This argument has slightly more merit. However, one must realize that the players are all reasonable people and wouldn't intentionally engage in "war" with another if they had other options available. "War" is undesirable, and none of the players at the table would choose to wage it rationally.

This leaves us with the prevailing theory that decision making was based on seating arrangements. This is well evidenced by SS's decisions. While SS had 5 decisions to make, more than any other person, he directed his "giving" to only one person, and that person was farthest away. He did not "give" to MK, who was very close but on another couch, or MB, slightly farther away, but not the farthest, nor did he "give" to JG, a member of his same couch. SS clearly looked for a member of an outgroup in which he could get others to gang up on.

And they did. In closest proximity to SS was MK. MK, with only 3 decisions, decided to spend one of them on ZS, influenced by the actions of SS and feeling comfortable with the distance between them. 

The distance and seating argument is further evidenced by actions of MK and MB on JG. MK and MB are members of the same couch. MB, with only 1 decision, chose to spend it on JG, and MK spent 2 out of 3 of his decisions on JG. MB and MK were located equally as far away from JG as SS and ZS were. The fact that they were working together and the "extreme" distance between the parties made it okay to gang up on this one player.

MK and MB also attacked each other by "giving" one decision to each. However, once the decision was reciprocated, the two never "gave" to one another again, indicating a truce of sorts, and an understanding of using their strength elsewhere on farther targets.

The decision by JG may seem a little incongruous with the proposed theory of distance being the most important factor, but a brief analysis makes sense of his decision.

JG had no reason to "give" to SS. They are members of the same couch and SS had never targeted JG before. It is then likely that JG would attack either MK or MB, because they "gave" to him and JG would like his revenge. However, JG was only provided with 1 decision, and it would have been futile to "give" to either MK or MB. There are two reasons for this.

First, by "giving" to only one of the members, MK or MB, the revenge isn't sweet at all. JG can only make one of his attackers suffer. The full effect of the decision is thus inconsequential; there is no statement made by JG's decision. Second, JG, realizing that he was a target of attack, didn't want to further annoy or anger MK or MB by "giving" to them. JG was already being targeted for being far away from MB and MK, an attack on them would just motivate MK and MB to "give" to JG more frequently.

Thus, JG "gave" to ZS, a fellow member of attack. There are several reasons why this may be the case. JG could try to win support from SS or MK, so they would both view JG as an ally. JG does this for MK so that he would no longer attack him, based on their mutual agreement to attack ZS. JG does this for SS so that if ZS, MK, or MB "gives" to JG, SS may counterattack on behalf of JG, due to the fact that they have a mutual understanding of attacking ZS and because they are members of the same couch. 

• Conclusion

The object of this study was to try and understand the decision making processes involved in playing a drinking game. 

After excluding alternative hypotheses, decision making during this drinking game can most accurately be attributed to the location in which someone sits relative to the other players.

ZS was thus a "sitting duck" from the start. He was farthest away from three of the four players, not including himself, and also sat in a chair with no other person. SS and JG were "members" of the same couch, just as MK and MB were "members" of a different couch. This team-like or shared experience as "members" of the same couch is remarkably strong in shifting decisions. Allegiances were tested, as MK and MB reveal, but ultimately, the majority of the decisions were based on how far someone was located away from the decision maker.