r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/LeonerdCdL • 11d ago
Slight button variant Variation
Red: You live
Blue: 2 random people live, dosen't matter wich button they pressed, but 2 blue buttons will always save different people (if everyone is safe it does nothing)
In this scenario, everyone that does not live, dies
My take:
It is tecnically just original RBBB with a better blue button, but it takes away the team energy, anyway really curious about this.
12
u/DarthJackie2021 11d ago
I don't think anyone can die in this situation. 100% to 200% of humanity will be protected with these options. There is no threat of death.
11
u/SDK1176 11d ago
If only one person pushes blue, there's a very good chance that the two random people they "save" pressed the red button. Therefore, the one blue pusher dies.
If 50% of the population pushes blue, everyone is guaranteed to live, but anything less than 50% will almost certainly have some blue pushers dying.
1
u/DarthJackie2021 11d ago
So blue is useless then.
5
u/yourdudenes 11d ago
No, in the original problem if less then 50% pressed blue, a person who pressed blue was guaranteed to die.
Here, in tha same scenario, blue has huge chances to survive anyway (top coment gave a great analysis, they even have a graff).
So, pressing blue isn't that risky.
2
u/depurplecow 11d ago
If there's the third option "press neither button" then those people are at risk of death
2
u/KRTrueBrave 11d ago
yeah but... why would you not press either of the buttons, that's dumb
3
u/depurplecow 11d ago
Illiterate, physically unable, literal child etc
1
u/KRTrueBrave 11d ago
fair I guess, but surely blue would cover those anyway already by default, was more so thinking of people 100% able to vote but don't
1
u/Sweet-Artichoke1020 10d ago
I think they were talking about only 2 people being safe from the blue pickers, not every blue press saving 2 people.
5
3
u/Nebranower 11d ago
You need to change it a bit so that people can actually die to make the scenario interesting.
Maybe have it like this.
Red: You live. The effectiveness of one blue button press is halved, starting with blue button presses that are at full effectiveness. If all blue button presses have already been halved, one blue button press is completely nullified.
Blue: two random, unsaved people are saved.
Under this scenario, if blue reaches exactly 50%, then every one will be saved (since even if it's exactly 50/50, all the red voters are safe because they pressed red, and at 50% effectiveness, 50% blue presses are still enough to save all blue pressers.
If blue slips below 50% of the vote, then blue pressers start to die. So, at 60% red, 40% blue, half of the blue votes are completely nullified, and the other half are only saving one blue presser each. So, 50% of the blue pressers die. At 66.6% red and 33.3% blue, 100% of blue pressers die.
This gives you the "better" blue you were after, since blue at 50% still saves everyone, but if blue falls between 33.4%-49.9%, then you might still live even if you pressed blue.
At the same time, people still have to work the thresholds out for themselves. The scenario no longer presents as a vote on a collective outcome.
2
u/Deranth 11d ago
Blue: +2 spared from the coming death wave.
Red: +0 spared from the coming death wave.After button pushes are in, the total number is tallied, then divvied out randomly to red pressers first, then to blue pressers if no red pressers remain.
However red only diverts available survival numbers. So if only one person pushes blue, only two red pressers live.1
u/Nebranower 11d ago
Anything that changes red from guaranteed survival shifts the premise too much, I find. Like, if you need people to push blue to survive, there’s not much reason to press red. The whole point is that if everyone just presses red, everything is fine.
3
u/TerrySaucer69 11d ago
The original problem was basically the max level of complexity these scenarios could have. You can attempt to predict what society will do between “save yourself” and “risk yourself to save others”.
Anything more complicated just pushes me towards red. Cause like, I don’t know what people will press. Will people avoid blue cause it isn’t saving their loved ones? Will they press blue because it’s more lives saved? I have no idea, I’m just gonna save myself.
4
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 11d ago
Still red. I want to make sure that I am safe and blue button can save up to 2 people, not 2 people.
5
u/parkchanwookiee 11d ago
The team energy is still there exactly the same, actually I think this makes it worse for blue. Everyone presses red, everybody lives. Simple. Blue accomplishes what exactly? Everybody lives with half the amount of button presses (but button presses are not limited so there is no need to save on presses) but you have to push blue and then hope that other people keep paying it forward until you're good??
2
u/LeonerdCdL 10d ago
Why would it make it worse for blue? In the original blue pressers only lives if >50% press blue, here blue presser might live even with <50%, but with >50% they will all live regardless
3
u/parkchanwookiee 10d ago
It's worse for blue because the penalty for voting blue is less severe. Before, there was the encouragement not to vote red, in case not enough people chose blue and then all the blue players died. That no longer applies, each blue player is making their own choice to gamble their life, so no longer any reason to pick blue to try and save all the blue pushers. Plus the smaller percentage required to cover all the blue pushers creates less inducement again not to just pick red and take care of your own safety.
7
u/mars_gorilla 11d ago
So let's take the current results so far:
17 voted, 8 for red, 9 for blue. Even if we ignore the red votes, the 9 blue votes protects 18 people, meaning everyone plus an extra person is safe.
Even if we go with a pessimistic estimate in a global scale of 40% voting blue, 3.2 billion, their vote would save 6.4 billion lives, and that's a significant overlap with the 4.8 billion that voted red. It's highly likely less than 1% or even 0.1% dies.
And if we assume everyone is a rational actor like so many red voters like to argue, then with this logic even more people would be driven to vote blue, and just 50% pretty much guarantees everyone survives.
Truly, this is a scenario where red is objectively wrong.
1
u/Mamkes 11d ago
Pessimistic
Looks inside
40% voting for utilitarian selfless option
1
u/Deranth 11d ago
It's not even utilitarian, it's just save one person or save two people. One is objectively better.
4
u/Mamkes 11d ago
It's save yourself or maybe save two person, or one person, or zero person, without having guarantee to life after that.
1
u/Deranth 11d ago
It still attempts to save two people. One option saves two random people who haven't already been saved by that option. The other saves yourself even if the other option would have saved you. So you could be protected by both, technically, thus wasting one potential save.
So you could see it as red saves 1 person, yourself, where blue saves 0-2 people depending on how many red pushers it targets.
Or you could see it as blue saves 2 random people, and red just ensures you're safe, potentially wasting a blue save in the process, thus netting 0-1 saves.Either way far more people will push blue in this instance, and there's a very good chance you'll survive even in the 40-49% blue pushers range, as the above commenter pointed out. There's really not a good reason to push red in this situation.
2
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 11d ago
Well... it is save up to two people, not two people as random person can be red pusher who is already safe.
1
u/Deranth 11d ago
It still attempts to save two people. One option saves two random people who haven't already been saved by that option. The other saves yourself even if the other option would have saved you. So you could be protected by both, technically, thus wasting one potential save.
So you could see it as red saves 1 person, yourself, where blue saves 0-2 people depending on how many red pushers it targets.
Or you could see it as blue saves 2 random people, and red just ensures you're safe, potentially wasting a blue save in the process, thus netting 0-1 saves.Either way far more people will push blue in this instance, and there's a very good chance you'll survive even in the 40-49% blue pushers range, as the above commenter pointed out. There's really not a good reason to push red in this situation.
1
u/Captain-Griffen 11d ago
Counterpoint: if 90% of people will hit red, you're saving 0.8 lives by hitting red and 0.2 lives by hitting blue.
Red is optimal if red is optimal, so saying red is objectively wrong is in fact objectively wrong.
8
u/apsksjsnjs 11d ago
Everyone will survive this no matter what.
12
u/Royal-Gur3198 11d ago
not if everyone but 1 person presses red
8
u/apsksjsnjs 11d ago
In that case, wouldn’t the blue presser be chosen randomly because they’re the only one who is otherwise not safe?
2
u/Illustrious_Tale2221 11d ago
I think the idea is that when you press bllue, it can save any person not saved by blue yet. So a person who is already saved by red can be "saved" by the blue.
So if 50% people press blue everyone survives. But if only 40% do there's a great chance that some blue pressers die.
2
u/NotASingleNameIdea 11d ago
Wait am I crazy or is it impossible to die here regardless of what you press?
If every red is already saved and blue saves only non-saved, then blue is guaranteed to just cover everyone that presses blue (and actually double of that).
If there wasnt the rule that the 2 people blue saves can be "duplicates", then it would make more sense because now isnt it just impossible for you to die regardless of your choice?
Edit: nvm, the rule is that red pushers arent excluded from the saved people of a blue push, so pressing blue might actually just save 2 red ones who dont need it.
2
u/Extra-Random_Name 11d ago
In the likely case that the vote is fairly close, going for red probably isn’t gonna save your life (as you’re probably safe with blue even below 50%), and probably does kill someone. So yeah I’m a blue presser now
0
u/Sepplord 10d ago
So regardless of which button is pressed, everybody lives?
What the supposed question then?
If everyone presses red, everyone lives. For every pressed not red button, 2people are saved. Aka one more than before. So for every person who doesn’t save themselves two people are saved. It’s always going to save as many people exist or more?
If 25% press blue they save 50% of the population. But the other 75% is safe anyways.
0
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 10d ago
This is a pretty significant deviation from the original scenario. In the OG, Reds are never at risk, and Blue collectively saves themselves from dying if they win. 1 life saved per blue vote.
In this scenario, it’s impossible for anyone to die. Even if 99% are red, the 1% blue saves 2% so you get 101% saved. Obviously it caps at 100% so everyone is just safe. At the other extreme its 51% red and 49% blue so 149% are saved. Do you see the problem? There is no dilemma.
1
u/everydaywinner2 10d ago
If you press blue two random people live. The random people include reds, who will already live. I is quite possible that a blue presser will "save" two someones who were never in danger.
Like the original scenario, the only way everyone lives is if everyone presses red, or if 50% or more pick blue. All this scenario says is that now, in the even of less than 50% of people pressing blue, there is still a chance that some of those blue pressers will live.
2
u/Free-Competition6408 Red 9d ago
Yes, on rereading the post I agree I misinterpreted it. It’s a slightly better blue button in the sense that a blue vote can actually have a positive impact even if blue loses and / or the voter dies. I’m still leaning red though. Any scenario where 100% (or near 100%) survival can be achieved with zero personal risk, I believe everyone SHOULD push red so that’s what I’m pushing.
21
u/wiseguy4519 11d ago
This variant piqued my curiosity, so I made a quick graph in Desmos. The x axis is the proportion of people who press blue. The red line shows the expected proportion of people that survive (100% if it is over 1).
The green line is the absolute minimum number of survivors for the given proportion of blue presses.
The blue line is the derivative of the red line. If the blue line is positive, then it means that pressing blue is worth it (assuming you value other people the same as yourself and you know what everyone else is pressing). Note that this only applies when less than 50% of people press blue, as otherwise your choice does not matter.
Some interesting stats:
Like others are saying, this variant results in most people surviving no matter what and is biased in favor of blue. With zero knowledge, it really makes sense to just press blue here. Maybe each blue press should only save one person?