The collective performance of stock market investors against an index is a zero-sum game. Since the value of an index includes all gains and losses, it is by definition zero-sum. According to game theory, the game of matching pennies is often cited as an example of a zero-sum game. The game consists of two players, A and B, putting a penny on the table at the same time. The payment depends on whether the cents match or not. If both pennies are heads or tails, player A wins and keeps player B`s penny; If they don`t match, player B wins and keeps player A`s penny. Many people think that family law cases are a zero-sum game. If one party wins, the other must necessarily lose, people think. Could there be two winners in a family law case? An example of what should be considered a non-zero-sum game is a competition between a merchant ship and a pirate ship, although at first glance it may look like one. Here, a victory for the pirates would mean gains in wealth, resources, and men (presumably as prisoners), while a victory for the merchant ship would only mean a defeat for the pirates` challenge. Here, price and losses, which are different for the two competing parties, are not considered an example of a zero-sum game. Non-zero-sum games don`t need to produce a positive net result – it can also be negative.

In the hacker example above, there is a case where hackers win, and it is a net negative for the whole system. Does the same zero-sum concept work in family law matters? For example, there are only 168 hours in a week. So if parent A has a child 104 hours a week, parent B can only own the child for 64 hours in the same week. But is owning the child really that easy? If all solutions for the linear program are found, they all form the Nash equilibria for the game. Conversely, any linear program can be converted to a two-player zero-sum game using a change in the variables it brings in the form of the above equations. So these games are usually equivalent to linear programs. Specialist in legal advice, legal interim management and recruitment & selection of legal profiles Pennies matching is a zero-sum game because the victory of one player is the loss of the other. Payouts for players A and B are listed in the table below, with the first digit in cells (a) through (d) representing player A`s payout and the second digit representing player B`s playoffs. As can be seen, the combined playoff for A and B is zero in all four cells. The payout matrix of a game is a practical representation.

For example, consider the two-player zero-sum game displayed on the right or above. In short, organic and human history involves playing more and more non-zero-sum games, ever larger and more sophisticated. It is the accumulation of these games – match after match – that explains the growth of biological and social complexity. I like to call this accumulation a “non-zero sum” accumulation. Non-zero sums are a type of potential – a potential for total gain or total loss, depending on how the game is played. Long-term thinking (beyond 5 years) is crucial to create NZS, as shorter-term sacrifices are often required. Significant ongoing and long-term investments are also needed to support innovation and non-zero value creation. For more context to the idea of NZS, Robert Wright states in his book “Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny”: The sum of all players` wins and losses does not add up to zero and represents a possibility where anyone can win. In game theory, this refers to the situation where the gain of one individual is not offset by the loss of another individual.

Fortunately, family law is not a zero-sum game. Win-win situations happen all the time. However, win-win situations are based on thoughtful and strategic legal work. Unfortunately, many family lawyers subscribe to the zero-sum theory. We recommend looking for a family law firm that understands the value of win-win solutions. At Youngblood Law P LLC, we reject the zero-sum theory. We plan win-win situations for our clients. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for winning winnings in family law cases. The question is whether your family law firm is up for the challenge of finding and pursuing win-win situations, or whether it is simply settling for a zero-sum game. Zero-sum games are found in game theory, but are less common than non-zero-sum games. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games because the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of others. Games like chess and tennis, where there is a winner and a loser, are also zero-sum games.

A zero-sum game is a situation where the losses incurred by a player in a transaction result in an equal increase in the opposing player`s winnings. It is so named because the net effect after gains and losses on both sides is zero. The zero-sum concept began with the idea that victory can only be achieved by losing an opponent. The idea probably arose from a misunderstanding of economics and finance, where the disputed entity was seen as fixed and immutable. A profit can therefore only be recorded if the loss of competition is ensured. A non-zero-sum game is a situation where there is a net benefit or loss to the system depending on the outcome of the game. In the stock market, trading is often considered a zero-sum game. However, since trades are made based on future expectations and traders have different risk preferences, a trade can be mutually beneficial. Long-term investment is a positive-sum situation, as capital flows facilitate production, and jobs that then provide production, and jobs that then provide savings and income, which then provide investments to continue the cycle.

Zero-sum games are a specific example of constant-sum games where the sum of each result is always zero. These games are distributive and not integrative; The cake cannot be expanded through good negotiations. In contrast, the non-zero sum describes a situation in which the total profits and losses of the interacting parties may be less than or greater than zero. A zero-sum game is also known as a highly competitive game, while non-zero-sum games can be competitive or non-competitive. Zero-sum games are most often solved using the minimax theorem, which is closely related to linear programming duality,[1] or Nash equilibrium. We can help you temporarily (for example, if your in-house lawyer retires due to illness or maternity leave or in the event of a temporary increase in work) to support your legal work with an interim lawyer or paralegal. Our goal is to convince economic actors – especially boards, management teams and investors – to think much more broadly about business and investment decisions. While we typically tried to optimize for two players in a game – corporate and client or mutual fund and investor, for example – this is no longer enough. The definition of fiduciary duty is changing in the 21st century and now includes disclosure of a variety of bad behaviour. Transparency is increasing and the speed of information requires focusing on long-term decisions that do not maximize the zero-sum game. Paradoxically, these decisions often do not maximize traditional returns for shareholders in the short term, but will create larger and stronger companies in the longer term, capable of having a more positive impact on society and the environment.

This critical way of thinking requires a high level of conscious and conscious decision-making with longer time horizons. Realigning a corporate culture to a long-term decision-making framework is critical to success, and that realignment must begin at the top of an organization, aligning incentives down to the smallest decisions. Instead of being paralyzed by a series of unintended consequences of every decision, no matter how small, we argue to consider your employees, customers, suppliers, and broader environmental and social consequences and simply ask, “Are we creating more value for our constituents than for ourselves?” Many people have a cognitive inclination to view situations as a zero-sum distortion, known as zero-sum distortion.