The dilemma for both players is to choose correctly which wine goblet is safe to drink, and which has the poison. Vizzini lost the game when he drank the wine with poison, and the game ended with the masked man as the victor.
2. What a person chooses to do in terms of decision-making and strategy can be explained by the common knowledge of rationality, or CKR. By exploring all possibilities and expectations on what others will do, as well as what might happen in certain if-then scenarios, effective strategies can be made given the possibility that the people a person plays with are also rational (Heap 23). For example, in reviewing for exams, strategies can be applied in such a way that the method can be more efficient and there would be a higher retention as compared to non-strategic reviewing. In my case, I just make an outline of the chapter to be studied, and then list all pertinent terms as well as their definitions. Afterwards I try to make a paraphrased version of the whole concept of the chapter, only studying extensively when needed to. This allows more time to focus on the concepts and framework of the chapter, rather than just rote-reading the whole chapter. Another simple strategy that needs to weigh in the possible outcomes is during a small game of cards. In games that entail the players to pit the suit and numbers in their cards, possibilities are usually run in the minds of each player. My usual strategy for this to prevent landing in last place is to recall as much as possible which cards were already discarded, then check my own hand and rule out the possibilities of the remaining cards.
3. The Nash equilibrium’s basic idea is that in a game, players would tend not to change their chosen strategies if the preferences of the other players as well as their strategies were already given out at the beginning (Heap 41). In the given