A forgotten game theory experiment that continues to challenge our understanding of decision-making, strategy, and human nature
What if everything we believe about rational decision-making is wrong? What if our cherished assumptions about strategy, alliance, and self-interest actually prevent us from succeeding in complex social situations? These are the profound questions raised by a seemingly simple parlor game developed in 1964 that would quietly revolutionize our understanding of human psychology, economics, and social behavior.
The story begins with a mysterious think-tank enterprise of the Cold War era known as "Project Michelson" and a second-hand paperback book that would lead historian D. Graham Burnett to rediscover a forgotten masterpiece of game theory: "So Long, Sucker!"—a game that its own creators described as having "little structure" and depending "almost completely on the bargaining ability and the persuasiveness of the players."6 This game, invented by some of the brightest mathematical minds of the 20th century, would become known simply as "Burnett, 1964" among those who understood its devastating implications for traditional theories of rational behavior.
"So Long, Sucker! should properly be understood as a playable allegory of Cold War geopolitics."6
In this article, we'll explore how this deceptively simple game challenged fundamental assumptions about human rationality, how it continues to influence fields from behavioral economics to political science, and why its message about the limits of calculation is more relevant today than ever in our complex, interconnected world.
The creation of "So Long, Sucker!" (also tellingly known as "Fuck Your Buddy") was the work of an extraordinary gathering of intellects6 :
The Nobel Prize-winning mathematician whose life story was immortalized in "A Beautiful Mind," specializing in game theory and the concept that would become known as the Nash Equilibrium.
A restlessly brilliant game theorist and mathematician who would later win the John von Neumann Theory Prize, known for breaking Soviet meteorological code during World War II and fundamental contributions to utility theory.
An articulate and imperious mathematical economist who would become notorious for inventing the "dollar auction," a seemingly innocuous game that could trap unsuspecting players into spending thousands of dollars to buy a single dollar bill.
A respected professor of mathematics who, despite his considerable accomplishments, found himself as the "fourth mind" at this extraordinary table.
These four luminaries came together at a time when game theory was being aggressively applied to Cold War geopolitics, particularly at institutions like the RAND Corporation, where researchers believed that mathematical models of conflict could provide powerful tools for theorizing real-world confrontations, including nuclear brinksmanship.6 "So Long, Sucker!" would emerge as both a product of this environment and a profound critique of its assumptions.
At its core, "So Long, Sucker!" is a game about the formation and betrayal of temporary alliances. The game is played with seven poker chips (or markers) in each of four colors, with each color assigned to one of four players. The equipment needed is simple, but the social dynamics are complex6 :
| Component | Quantity | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Colored poker chips | 7 of each of 4 colors | Represent player assets |
| Game board or table | 1 | Playing surface |
| Players | 4 | Participants in strategic negotiation |
Each player receives seven chips of their assigned color, stacked in front of them.
Players take turns creating "stacks" of chips by placing one of their chips on any existing stack or starting a new stack with one of their chips.
When a stack contains all four colors, the player whose color is on top captures the entire stack and removes it from play.
Captured stacks are placed in a "cemetery" area, with the capturing player's chip placed on top as a record.
Players can move their own chips from one stack to another, potentially setting up captures for themselves or others.
Players with no chips left are eliminated but continue to influence play through their ability to move other players' chips.
The ultimate goal is to be the last player remaining with chips, but as players quickly discover, straightforward pursuit of this objective almost guarantees failure.
The genius of "So Long, Sucker!" lies not in its rules but in the emergent social dynamics it creates. When played, the game reveals several counterintuitive truths about human behavior and strategic thinking:
Unlike traditional games like chess, "So Long, Sucker!" does not reward protecting or preserving one's own chips. Success demands a willingness to sacrifice one's own pieces to capture the right "prisoner."6 Similarly, actually eliminating other players from the game is seldom advantageous, as impotent potential allies tend to be more valuable than dead enemies.
Much of the gameplay feels shambolic and arbitrary until a sudden inflection point emerges without warning. As Burnett notes, "There is, in So Long, Sucker, no systematic, unfolding 'battle' moving inexorably to its endgame. Instead, small wars flare up, die down, are forgotten. Then remembered."6 This mirrors real-world social and political dynamics, where the illusion of control often obscures the actual forces at play.
The game serves as what Burnett calls "gamified tutorial in the circumscribed utility of traditional game theory itself—a kind of penitential rite for those excessively enamored with calculating reason."6 Legend has it that John Nash himself fell victim to this dynamic when he betrayed an alliance with John McCarthy, another pioneering mathematician.
| Traditional Strategy | So Long, Sucker! Reality | Real-World Parallel |
|---|---|---|
| Protect your assets | Sacrifice chips to gain position | Strategic investment |
| Eliminate competitors | Keep weakened players as allies | Balance of power politics |
| Plan many moves ahead | Adapt to emergent coalitions | Business negotiation |
| Maximize short-term gains | Build reputation for cooperation | Diplomatic relations |
Nash coolly expressed bafflement at McCarthy's outrage, stating, "I don't understand why you are so unhappy—anyone could do the backward induction and see that I had to turn on you at that point."6 This perfectly rational calculation proved disastrous, as McCarthy—being human rather than a purely rational agent—spent the rest of the game ensuring Nash would not win.
While "So Long, Sucker!" began as a parlor game, its implications have resonated across multiple disciplines, influencing how researchers understand human decision-making:
The game provides a powerful challenge to the concept of "homo economicus"—the perfectly rational, self-interested decision-maker of traditional economic theory. It demonstrates situations where strict rationality leads to poor outcomes, while seemingly irrational behaviors can prove advantageous.
The game serves as a laboratory for studying how trust forms and dissolves in social networks. Players must form "a series of temporary unenforceable conditions" to advance, yet "at some point it may be to the advantage of a player to renege on his agreement."6 This dynamic mirrors real-world situations from business partnerships to international diplomacy.
As Burnett notes, "So Long, Sucker! should properly be understood as a playable allegory of Cold War geopolitics."6 The game captures essential dynamics of nuclear deterrence, proxy wars, and alliance building that defined the latter half of the 20th century, where "victory is generally punished, hapless extemporizing rewarded, and strategic hubris invariably fatal."6
| Field | Research Application | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral Economics | Limits of rational choice theory | Emotions and relationships impact decisions |
| Political Science | Alliance formation and breakdown | Temporary alignments outperform fixed alliances |
| Social Psychology | Trust and cooperation mechanisms | Reputation effects outweigh immediate gains |
| Organizational Behavior | Corporate strategy and negotiation | Overly aggressive tactics often backfire |
Researchers studying games like "So Long, Sucker!" and their real-world applications rely on both conceptual frameworks and experimental tools:
This toolkit allows researchers to move beyond abstract theory and observe the complex interplay of calculation, emotion, and social dynamics that characterize real human decision-making.
More than half a century after its creation, "So Long, Sucker!" continues to offer profound insights into the human condition. In an era of increasingly complex social networks, global economic interdependence, and geopolitical tensions, the game's lessons about the limits of calculation and the importance of social dynamics have never been more relevant.
The game reminds us that success in complex social environments often requires counterintuitive approaches: sacrificing short-term advantages for long-term positioning, preserving weakened competitors rather than eliminating them, and recognizing that apparent chaos may conceal emerging patterns of cooperation and conflict.
Perhaps most importantly, "So Long, Sucker!" stands as a timeless warning against what Burnett calls "strategic hubris"—the dangerous belief that we can calculate our way through situations that fundamentally depend on the unpredictable, emotionally-driven decisions of other human beings. In the end, the game reveals that true strategy involves not just mathematics but psychology, not just calculation but relationship-building, and not just ruthless efficiency but the wisdom to know when cooperation serves our interests better than competition.
As we navigate the complex games of business, politics, and everyday life, we would do well to remember the lessons of "Burnett, 1964"—that sometimes, the surest path to success requires understanding not just the rules of the game, but the human hearts of the players around us.