Player 1 is at 20 life and has a tapped, indestructible unblockable 5/5, no cards in hand or other relevant permanents.
Player 2 is at 5 life and has 20 power worth of destructible creatures, 11 mountains, and a known banefire as the only card in hand.
You, player 3 are at 10 life and have an untapped nevinyrral's disk with mana to activate it, and no way to deal damage anywhere in your deck or command zone.
All this information is known to all players.
It's player 2s turn, what can happen and what's your optimal play? Is there a way to win without any win condition
Simpler situation so we don't spend another million hours whinging about the minute details of what may or may not be in people's decks etc:
3 players.
Each player has a sorcery which they have the mana to cast.
Player 1's reads "you win the game."
Player 2 and 3's each read "target opponent wins the game."
It is currently player 2's turn.
How does player 2 or 3 have a chance to win the game?
Here's my opinion/solution(?):
If player 2 goes to combat and attacks player 1 for lethal and you let them, then guaranteed they win as they'll banefire you.
If player 2 goes to combat and attacks player 1 for lethal and you activate disk, then they're guaranteed to die to player 1, and can banefire you in the face as retaliation if they want, though it make no difference, player 1 wins either way.
If player 2 goes to combat and doesn't attack player 1 for lethal, they may or may not kill you but either way they'll die to player 1.
If player 2 shoots you with banefire precombat, you activate disk and they lose the game, or don't and they win.
It looks like you have the ability to decide which of your opponents wins the game, but no way to win for yourself.
Or do you?
There is one way: if player 2 kills player 1, and then shoots himself in the face with his own banefire. But why would he do that? Well, neither of you can win without the other's consent, so if you play normally the win is guaranteed to go to player 1, which neither of you wants.
So instead, you make a wager: you flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you agree not to activate disk and let him win. If it comes up tails, he agrees to lethally banefire himself in the face after killing player 1. Thus you have created a situation where you'd both normally have a 0% chance to win, but now you both have a 50% chance to win.
-------
I'm curious if anyone has ever ended up in a situation similar to this, or how they'd feel if this happened in a game and someone tried to make a wager like that. Is it unsporting? Should you let player 1 win? Should you let player 2 win? Does it matter if player 2 casts banefire at your head before or after combat as regards activating disk? What about if instead the wager is to simply give you one more turn before killing you, and you know you have some number of outs in the deck that could win the game or at least save you from the banefire? What if you win the wager, and then your opponent banefires you in the face anyway?
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's a pointless continuation of a different thread's argument.
its related but it takes the question a step further. I certainly don’t recall anyone asking the question “is it sportsmanlike to flip a coin to determine the winner of a game?”
It's odd to me that you are asking this at all. You're usually the guy railing against trying to win at all costs, which seems to be what this is about. Sure it's hypothetical, but since you laid it out and then "solved" it, I'm not really sure what there is left to talk about. Myself, I'd make a choice based on how I felt at the time, shake hands for a good game and shuffle up for the next one. In games, I don't try to think that deep, but maybe that's just me. In D&D, I'm the player muttering "ah, the heck with it, let's just do it", which is why I play bards and fighters.
It's odd to me that you are asking this at all. You're usually the guy railing against trying to win at all costs, which seems to be what this is about. Sure it's hypothetical, but since you laid it out and then "solved" it, I'm not really sure what there is left to talk about. Myself, I'd make a choice based on how I felt at the time, shake hands for a good game and shuffle up for the next one. In games, I don't try to think that deep, but maybe that's just me. In D&D, I'm the player muttering "ah, the heck with it, let's just do it", which is why I play bards and fighters.
I tend to rail against building the highest powered decks to win at all costs. Not playing. Playing correctly is always the most fun and most interesting imo.
Multiplayer offers puzzles that don’t even exist in 1:1 games. Doesn’t that interest anyone else?
Sure it does, but from the sheer amount of cards and number of players available for scenarios, it's honestly nothing more than a pointless headache trying to think up of them when solving them hypothetically doesn't really accomplish anything (no way you can think of sufficient scenarios to respond adeptly for each one that happens for real each time they will). I'll prefer to keep the format fun by waiting for said scenarios to reveal themselves and solve it then and there (and even if mistakes were made repeatedly because they were uncommon, I'll admit it's just the nature of the format).
That being said, regarding your scenario it'll be unlikely for me (based on my own experiences with playgroups) to ever reach a coin-flipping state. Since we know all factors involved, whoever I choose to win is a pointless decision in by itself and whoever wins technically wins a hollow victory. There's a very good chance we'll just point this scenario out in its entirely and just end the game in a draw, essentially creating "Schrodinger's Victory" (where he wins and we all lose technically because we somehow locked ourselves into a meaningless game-state-ending). All assuming a neutral social context (which is true most of time with me).
What if player 2 casts Banefire on player 1 for 10 dmg pre-combat. Then attacks player 1 for 10 dmg. Chance are you let player 1 die, because your disk can handle the destructibles, but not the indestructible, so now you and player 2 are in top decking situation. No coin flips needed.
Not sure where all the hate is coming from - apparently people playing magic don't like to...think? huh...who'd have thought...I don't see how this is "validating morals" - but whatevs.
Anyways, I like your scenario - reminds me of the old mtg puzzles they'd include in Scrye (and if you know what Scrye is, you've been playing for awhile). That said, I think Darrenhabib pointed out the correct line of play from a game-theory perspective for player 2.
I would agree to blast myself in the face to get a chance to kill Player 1. Then I will blast my other opponent in the face with Banefire. Why would I ever commit suicide if I can win because my opponent trusted me? I have even been in situations where i would make a deal and then go back on it almost immediately.
The answer requires a re-enforcement on the stand off for another turn. Player 3, I, must convince Player 2 not to kill me as I could help them against player 1 and Player 2 must also convince Player 1 that they only need 2 turns to kill player 3 and they should kill player 3 instead of them, in order to get another turn to break the dead-lock. The optimal play is probably, Don't use banefire and player 1 attacks player 3, Disk isn't used. Now all players are still in the game. Knowing the power of top decks I would want a longer game to find a true winner.
I have ended up in the mexician stand off sitaution in a three player game before.
I was deveri bird tribal and I had a bunch of bird tokens in play. Enough to kill one player but swinging would mean i would die to the other player it was the same for the other players at the table. (Even using deveri wouldn't help) Now my bird tokens were being produced by emeria angel so I could wait, and even bad draws were more birds for me. I top deck.. Birthing pod... ooooooh boy. This is what I did, I sac emeria angel for Karmic guide returning Augury owl, I put deveri into play untapping birthing pod Sacing Augury owl.. getting Soraya the falconer, now my bird tokens are big enough to kill both players. man I love birthing pod.
Hey look, got at least a little conversation going.
I considered amending the hypothetical to say that you have, say, shock in hand, so you don't need to trust your opponent to shoot themself in the face, they can just do it precombat for 3 (or you'll know they're backing out of the deal and can set off disk). Obviously the trust element makes things a little trickier, especially with strangers. With a regular group, I feel like you'd know the people who would follow through and the people who are going to say whatever to win. And I guess in that case you say "well, if you weren't such a dick you'd have a 50% chance to win this game", and then blow the disk.
I do think it's really funny that some people are indignant about losing/winning to a coin flip. Clearly you've never been at low life with a mana crypt before. And anyway, isn't winning via topdeck just another kind of coin flip? There's tons of random chance in the game; sometimes it does come down to a strict X% chance to win based on hitting one of your outs. There's no more skill involved in that then there is in a coin flip. The whole game is a matter of chance. Pros understand this - it's all about improving your winrate by a percent at a time - finding those incremental advantages are how pros are made. At the end of the day, it's still luck, even if your skill is what determines the chance, you're still ultimately flipping a "coin".
@darrenhabib: that's why I explicitly said that there are no ways to deal damage in your deck to avoid that easy solution. If you don't take this opportunity to win, you can't win.
is it sportsmanlike to flip a coin to determine the winner of a game?
I'm going to say "no" in the general case. And considering such an agreement would be against the rules in a Magic tournament, I think that's not an unfounded assessment.
Of course, cases such as being at 3 or less life with a Mana Crypt are different, since that's a card effect forcing you into the situation.
I really like this thought experiment.
There is one additional problem. Player 1 and 2 could also make a deal. Not attacking eachother for x turns and waiting for a topdeck, is another solution for them.
The trick in this situation is being most likable. Thus you either get favored by the kingmaker or obtain the chance for a wager. Judging from the posts here offering the wager does however not make you popular.
Depending on the nature of the dealmaking, player 2 could also be the most likely winner. If you cannot make a deal with player 1, player 2 can take deals from both of you. Now you have to undercut eachother in giving player 2 better chances at winning against you. Player 2 takes the best deal he gets which is probably a chance well above 50% for him.
Slightly off Topic: I must warn you, doing this with prices on the line would probably lead to both players getting a disqulification for wager. I think the two remaining players might go for a draw and split prices.
I considered that but I don't think it's possible for player 1 to make any deals. Player 3 is motivated to get a "win" this turn, otherwise it's impossible, so if player 2 doesn't agree to the wager (or the draw) he'll set off disk immediately, giving the win to player 1. Maybe theoretically player 2 could say "I won't take the wager and I'll just let him set off the disk if you agree not to attack me next turn?" or something like that, but that seems like worse odds for player 2 since he has to topdeck an answer or a wincon by the next turn. Probably worse than the 50/50 odds of a coin flip. Even if you're waiting for more than 1 turn, they're both in topdeck mode but p1 has unstoppable lethal already on board. So player 1 would have to offer a very good deal AND be quite trustworthy to have a chance of persuading player 2 that his odds were better than a coin flip.
As far as negotiating higher win chances...that gets pretty wonky. Player 2 can give the win to either opposing player, but so can player 3. If a "bidding war" begins over player 3 and player 1 "wins" (so a deal between 1 and 3) then player 2 can sabotage the deal by killing player 3. But if a bidding war begins over player 2 and player 1 "wins" (deal between 1 and 2) then player 3 can sabotage the deal by nuking the board and thus "killing" player 2 (I guess I could add to the scenario by saying there are no relevant cards in anyone's library to make it more clear-cut). So I think the only deal that can't be sabotaged by the third party is between 2 and 3, so that's the deal that ultimately has to be made. If one demands higher odds things get weird since in theory that's the best chance for the other player to win, but they still have just as much bargaining power so they could come back the same way. Ultimately I guess it comes down to a game of chicken, essentially.
is it sportsmanlike to flip a coin to determine the winner of a game?
I'm going to say "no" in the general case. And considering such an agreement would be against the rules in a Magic tournament, I think that's not an unfounded assessment.
Of course, cases such as being at 3 or less life with a Mana Crypt are different, since that's a card effect forcing you into the situation.
I've always thought that was a weird part of tournament magic. Magic is a game of luck and skill, and you really can't win without some of both. If you never draw a land you're not going to win no matter how good you are (there's probably some belcher counterexample but shut up). The idea that "ohh no, luck is determining a winner rather than skill!!!" is ridiculous. If you want to win via pure skill, go play chess.
I suspect there are 2 reasons why tournaments don't allow coin flipping to determine a winner (a policy that's particularly egregious at my LGS where it's pack-per-win at prereleases with no packs awarded for ties...) - (1) the negative public perception by people who incorrectly think that magic is chess and are aghast that luck could determine the winner, and (2) the risk of breaking gambling laws. Probably more (2) than (1).
I don't see why it matters whether a card is forcing you into the situation. The game state is forcing you into the situation in the hypothetical - if you don't make a deal, guaranteed you both lose. If you do, you've got a 50%. Why is a card creating the situation rather than the gamestate better?
I don't see why it matters whether a card is forcing you into the situation. The game state is forcing you into the situation in the hypothetical - if you don't make a deal, guaranteed you both lose. If you do, you've got a 50%. Why is a card creating the situation rather than the gamestate better?
Because your hypothetical relies on meta-decisions about the game, while the Mana Crypt example relies on simply following the directions on the cards.
I don't see why it matters whether a card is forcing you into the situation. The game state is forcing you into the situation in the hypothetical - if you don't make a deal, guaranteed you both lose. If you do, you've got a 50%. Why is a card creating the situation rather than the gamestate better?
Because your hypothetical relies on meta-decisions about the game, while the Mana Crypt example relies on simply following the directions on the cards.
I understand why they're different, but why does that make it better?
For that matter, why is determining a game by random chance bad at all? I'd argue it's because skill has been taken out of the equation, which is true if someone just flipped a coin at the start of the match. But what's really happened in the crypt AND the standoff situations is that all the other factors of the game ultimately contributed to a point where it's a simply coin flip over who wins. If less damage had been dealt to the player with the crypt, it would have been 100% win for him. If more damage had been dealt, they'd already be dead, 0% win. But because they were dealt just the right amount of damage, it came down to a 50/50. Same of the standoff - if p2 had fewer than 20 damage on the board, or player 1 had more life, the scenario would be totally different. Or if p3 had more life, or p2 had fewer lands, or p2 had more life...any one of these things change, and it's no longer a 50% winrate game between 2 and 3, it's something else entirely.
My point is that a game that ends in a coin flip isn't simply a no-skill game. In order to get to that point, skills were tested (and plenty of other luck was involved as well), and if those things hadn't worked out that way, most likely it wouldn't have come down to a coin flip.
I wonder if you have the same problem with 2 and 3 agreeing to kill 1 and then call it a draw?
One thing is coinflipping because you put coinflip cards inside your deck. One thing is coinflipping out of nowhere.
As you said, player 3 has no way to win. No board, no hand, no deck. Why should he win? Player 2 has better board, a lot of lands and a good card. Why should he lose? To me player 3 winning with a coinflip isn't smart or good playing skills, it's just colluding. What's the difference with saying "hey player 2, kill player 1 then concede. I'll give you 5$". See? This way you can win every game!
It's not "out of nowhere", it's because that's what the game state dictates is the correct play. If player 2 had a better board state (more life, say, a bunch more creatures in hand, exiling removal, etc) he wouldn't have to kowtow to player 3's deal. He could just win on his own with no deals. But that's not the situation he's in. Why shouldn't he lose? He left himself exposed to exactly this situation, where one board wipe loses him the game. If he plays normally HE WILL LOSE. Player 1 is the winner if everyone plays normally without communicating. So it's super weird to me that you're taking player 2's side, I'd think you'd take player 1s if anything.
Also, more importantly magic isn't a game where the people who win are the people who are "supposed" to win, whatever that means. I actually have no idea what you mean by that.
The difference between offering $5 and offering to decide the game on a coin flip is that one of those is offering something outside the game? Obviously? That's sort of an important distinction. As far as whether it's collusion, I mean tons of stuff is "collusion" that no one bats an eye at in commander. The important thing is, at the end of the day, everyone is trying to win the game as well as they can. If that means temporarily allying with someone to handle a bigger threat, then that's part of the fun of a multiplayer format, even if you're colluding with someone temporarily, you intend to eventually try to kill them once the larger threat is dealt with. The kind of collusion that's negative to the game is OUTSIDE collusion, i.e. making an agreement outside of the game, which isn't what's happening in the scenario as described. Both players are taking the line that gives them the best possible chance of winning - which is what magic is all about.
Of course i'm taking player 2 side, he's going to win unless he's stopped. He is exposed, but so is player 1 since he has only 5 life and only one creature. If it was player 1's turn, he would be the winner, but since it's player 2's turn he has the advantage. It's a very close situation.
Player can influence the game of course and change everything, but i don't get why he should. He has no chance to win on his own.
I still think that's negative collusion because your making a player target himself with his own banefire. Why in the world a player woulld ever do that in a normal situation? I don't think it's a thing that should happen in a normal game.
How about to win via near-death experience? Might target yourself with banefire for that reason. Is that not a "thing that should happen"? What about to make a bunch of tokens via darien, king of kjeldor? That's not "normal"? Any strategies that aren't super obvious are evil and must be purged?
And if you agree that those are both acceptable, then clearly targeting yourself with a banefire isn't the problem on its own. So you might want to come up with a better reason why the wager isn't acceptable.
Aside: "Of course i'm taking player 2 side, he's going to win unless he's stopped." - what a ridiculous sentence. He's put himself in a position where he CAN be stopped, and another player has the motivation to do so. You don't get credit for trying to win. If someone else stops you, then YOU DON'T GET TO WIN.
Gentlemen, there is no correct play except for Player 2, the entire outcome hinges on how Player 2 orders his kills. If he puts that banefire on the stack pre-attack he loses. Player 3 needs player 2 to eliminate player 1 because barring a miracle draw or his commander being able to handle the 5/5 destructive monster he has no available resources to handle the indestructible beast.
Player 2 needs to swing at player 1 then Balefire player 3 in the second main phase, anything outside of that line of play risks player 2 giving up his advantage.
Gentlemen, there is no correct play except for Player 2, the entire outcome hinges on how Player 2 orders his kills. If he puts that banefire on the stack pre-attack he loses. Player 3 needs player 2 to eliminate player 1 because barring a miracle draw or his commander being able to handle the 5/5 destructive monster he has no available resources to handle the indestructible beast.
Player 2 needs to swing at player 1 then Balefire player 3 in the second main phase, anything outside of that line of play risks player 2 giving up his advantage.
I feel like you didn't read the scenario. Player 3 will definitely set off disk if player 2 attacks player 1 for lethal damage. Player 3 has to do this or he will lose 100%. Player 2 doesn't have an advantage to give up. He's a walking dead man.
I'll try to be more clear, but then i'll stop answering because dealing with strawmen isn't fun.
Making a player target and KILL himself with his own banefire isn't normal and will never hhapen with a normal strategy. Happy now?
Player 1 put himself in a position where he can get stopped too. He'll get stopped sooner than player 2 if player doesn't do anything because t's player 2 turn. So i don't get why he deserve the win more than player 2.
Sure, player 3 can stop player 2, but why should he do it? What are his motivation? He has no way to win. That should be lower on the scale than "you can win but someone stopped you" right?
So we have player 2 who has won unless player 3 make him lose for no reason, player 3 who has won only if something alters the normal flow of the game and player 3 who has no way to win.
Many players have no interest into being kingmakers. Many players will just decide by simpathy. You proposed a way for player 3 to win that wasn't accepted by all the players. Many, including myself, think that's it's not a worthy way to win. You wanted to discuss? Accept that many people don't like coinflipping, gambling and colluding as a way to win, simple as that.
I'm just reading the arguments as written, not inventing straw men. Don't blame me for you being unclear.
How about the player has a platinum angel out and darien, and banefires himself to negative life to make a bunch of soldiers, but then another player kills the angel in response? Or even simpler, it's the near-death experience situation but an opponent casts lightning bolt in response to the banefire that was attempting to set the player to 1 life?
At this point I'm mostly just poking holes for fun though - let's be more charitable and assume you meant ON PURPOSE killing himself. Well, that happens all the time too. It's called a concession. With the board as-is, player 2 may as well concede. Any move he makes to kill player 1 will cause player 3 to set off the disk, and he will definitely die on player 1's next turn. He cannot win the game as it currently stands, without "colluding" with player 3. He can either choose to use the resources he has to make a deal, or not make a deal and lose 100%.
I have no idea what "scale" you're talking about. Player 3 will set off disk if player 2 attacks player 1 lethally because, if he doesn't, guaranteed he loses right away. If he sets of disk, maybe there's some chance something crazy will happen and he'll have a chance to win. Maybe an opponent will deck himself by miscounting a draw spell or something. Maybe player 1 will have a stroke. Even if it's a .000000001% chance to win, it's better than 0%. It's not "no reason". Even if we assume it's 0% vs 0% though, player 3 has no reason NOT to set off the disk either - it's a totally arbitrary decision. At best player 2 has a 50/50 chance to win, at the whim of player 3.
Sure, 99.9% of players would never consider this line of play, but that doesn't make it wrong. Finding clever, unintuitive plays is the most exciting part of the game. Wagering is the highest EV play for player 2 and 3, therefore they should take it.
Coinflipping - mana crypt decides games already, so that's not a legitimate reason to dislike it. If you're so worried about it, though, you could just say player 2 and 3 declare a draw instead of flipping a coin. Personally I'd rather flip a coin though. I don't like to share the spotlight.
gambling - gambling requires that something be on the line, which there isn't. If you mean "chance", chance has a pivotal role in magic with or without blatant coin flipping. What if rather than flipping a coin, player 2 agrees not to banefire player 3 until his next turn, and it's known that player 3 has 2 cards left with one being a lethal fireball? What's the difference?
colluding - I believe to qualify as collusion it has to be secret, which in this case it isn't, but ignoring that, people ally themselves all the time in commander to deal with a larger problem, which is essentially what's happening here. Player 2 and 3 need to both work together to kill player 1, that's the only way to kill him.
There may well be a problem with this method of play, maybe even a legitimate one - but whatever it may be, I don't think you've found it yet.
Gambling the outcome of the game on a coin flip isn't a play at all. You're taking all of the decision-making out of the game itself.
So if a player makes an attack that guarantees lethal on the next turn, but risks losing if his opponent topdecks lightning bolt - is that "taking all the decision making out of the game?" It's basically the same situation - you're deciding on a play that has some chance of losing the game and some chance of winning, depending upon something random that you have no control over - whether your opponent draws bolt vs whether you lose the coin flip. In both cases, though, you are DECIDING to take that risk because you've decided that your chances of winning are better with that risk than without it. That's the decision making - if either player 2 or 3 thought they had a better chance to win by not taking the wager, they wouldn't take the wager. Just like if taking the big attack gave you a worse chance to win, you wouldn't do it.
P3 is the decision maker here:
Choose to kill creatures: P2 bfs p3 and he is third
Let it go through:
P2 kills P1, then bfs p3 => p3 2nd
By that, p3 should not take this move.
By "this move" I assume you mean setting off disk? Interesting, but personally I consider there to be only 2 rankings: winning and losing. Dying last is exactly the same as dying first, imo. Often it's the worst player who dies last, because his opponents were more concerned with killing the other, more dangerous players. But you're free to disagree.
--------
Just for fun, I'll argue against myself a little bit.
I think the best argument against the wager so far is probably the one ilovesaprolings made in his first post - player 3 has no way to be sure that player 2 will honor the agreement after killing player 1. Let's say we're playing life-and-death magic and whoever loses dies irl, so winning is absolutely paramount and being honorable or whatever is pretty meaningless. If player 2 decides that he has a 0% chance to trust player 2, then there's no reason to make a wager, and it becomes arbitrary whether he sets off disk, and either player 1 or player 2 will win.
Could also switch to the "player 2 has a shock in hand" scenario, so that player 3 doesn't need to trust player 2. Still doesn't quite work in the death magic scenario, though, since player 2 is still probably just going to attack and hope player 3 decides not to blow everything up, since he has nothing to gain by fulfilling the deal once he's dead. Although obviously it's highly likely player 3 will nuke the board just as a "screw you" for reneging.
One could circumvent this (at least outside the death-magic scenario) by adding incentive to honor the agreement, say collateral being handed over to player 3 until the wager is completed. Might need to get a notary public involved at that point.
I've been in a kingmaker situation a few times. I always just decide based on which of the others screwed me over more. They're the one that loses. Coin toss wins are never any fun.
As for making agreements, if someone wants to be a dick like that then fine. I'll never agree to anything they suggest ever again and will make sure any other players we wind up at the same game with know that person can't be trusted to honor an agreement. And if they are just a complete jerk about it, I have no problem letting another player win every game so long as that jerk loses.
I've been in a kingmaker situation a few times. I always just decide based on which of the others screwed me over more. They're the one that loses. Coin toss wins are never any fun.
Luckily these sorts of scenarios come up very rarely. Kingmaker scenarios occur, sure, but there's often a way out of it, some deal being made that doesn't come down to flipping a coin.
For example, in the much-more-reasonable scenario that is this one, except player 3 has actual wincons, the solution is pretty straightforward (the swing-10 at player 1, banefire player 1 for lethal, player 3 sets off disk and then it's a topdeck war for lethal). Player 3 could of course still try to hold the game hostage to the wager if they think it's their best odds of winning, though, and they also have potential to beat player 1 if they topdeck well so board wiping isn't guaranteed suicide, so depending how pliable player 2 is player 3 may or may not be able to finagle the wager out of him - it's roughly the game of chicken mentioned earlier. Anyway, as long as he doesn't go hard-liner on player 2 to try to force the wager, then whether he nukes it and fights player 1, or lets player 2 kill 1 with banefire, the topdeck chances are what it comes down to, rather than an actual coin flip.
As for whether they're satisfying, it's a little funny how human brains work, that you're probably right, yet in the 1-turn-truce deal, if player 3 topdecked a fireball they'd probably be thrilled, even though it's still essentially a coin flip. There is some merit to the fact that player 3 had to decide to include the fireball, so it's a risk that he had control over, but I suspect he'd be no less excited if he were borrowing someone else's deck.
Obviously the wager is a pretty vulcan-y thing to do: I think it's perfectly logical but I suspect very few people would consider doing it in real life. Whether that's because they don't think about it, or because it's just not a satisfying way to win, is debatable. In the life-or-death magic, though, and if hypothetically there's some way to force player 2 to follow through on the wager should he lose, I think any sane human would take the wager, though, since it's the only way for player 2 or player 3 to win.
I would agree to blast myself in the face to get a chance to kill Player 1. Then I will blast my other opponent in the face with Banefire. Why would I ever commit suicide if I can win because my opponent trusted me? I have even been in situations where i would make a deal and then go back on it almost immediately.
And people still make deals with you? Either the people you play with are stupid or have a very short memory.
If you go back on your promises people no longer make deals with you. Winning one game isn't worth to lose all the free value you get from deals in future games.
Player 1 is at 20 life and has a tapped, indestructible unblockable 5/5, no cards in hand or other relevant permanents.
Player 2 is at 5 life and has 20 power worth of destructible creatures, 11 mountains, and a known banefire as the only card in hand.
You, player 3 are at 10 life and have an untapped nevinyrral's disk with mana to activate it, and no way to deal damage anywhere in your deck or command zone.
All this information is known to all players.
It's player 2s turn, what can happen and what's your optimal play? Is there a way to win without any win condition
Simpler situation so we don't spend another million hours whinging about the minute details of what may or may not be in people's decks etc:
3 players.
Each player has a sorcery which they have the mana to cast.
Player 1's reads "you win the game."
Player 2 and 3's each read "target opponent wins the game."
It is currently player 2's turn.
How does player 2 or 3 have a chance to win the game?
Here's my opinion/solution(?):
If player 2 goes to combat and attacks player 1 for lethal and you activate disk, then they're guaranteed to die to player 1, and can banefire you in the face as retaliation if they want, though it make no difference, player 1 wins either way.
If player 2 goes to combat and doesn't attack player 1 for lethal, they may or may not kill you but either way they'll die to player 1.
If player 2 shoots you with banefire precombat, you activate disk and they lose the game, or don't and they win.
It looks like you have the ability to decide which of your opponents wins the game, but no way to win for yourself.
Or do you?
There is one way: if player 2 kills player 1, and then shoots himself in the face with his own banefire. But why would he do that? Well, neither of you can win without the other's consent, so if you play normally the win is guaranteed to go to player 1, which neither of you wants.
So instead, you make a wager: you flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you agree not to activate disk and let him win. If it comes up tails, he agrees to lethally banefire himself in the face after killing player 1. Thus you have created a situation where you'd both normally have a 0% chance to win, but now you both have a 50% chance to win.
-------
I'm curious if anyone has ever ended up in a situation similar to this, or how they'd feel if this happened in a game and someone tried to make a wager like that. Is it unsporting? Should you let player 1 win? Should you let player 2 win? Does it matter if player 2 casts banefire at your head before or after combat as regards activating disk? What about if instead the wager is to simply give you one more turn before killing you, and you know you have some number of outs in the deck that could win the game or at least save you from the banefire? What if you win the wager, and then your opponent banefires you in the face anyway?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Multiplayer offers puzzles that don’t even exist in 1:1 games. Doesn’t that interest anyone else?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Sure it does, but from the sheer amount of cards and number of players available for scenarios, it's honestly nothing more than a pointless headache trying to think up of them when solving them hypothetically doesn't really accomplish anything (no way you can think of sufficient scenarios to respond adeptly for each one that happens for real each time they will). I'll prefer to keep the format fun by waiting for said scenarios to reveal themselves and solve it then and there (and even if mistakes were made repeatedly because they were uncommon, I'll admit it's just the nature of the format).
That being said, regarding your scenario it'll be unlikely for me (based on my own experiences with playgroups) to ever reach a coin-flipping state. Since we know all factors involved, whoever I choose to win is a pointless decision in by itself and whoever wins technically wins a hollow victory. There's a very good chance we'll just point this scenario out in its entirely and just end the game in a draw, essentially creating "Schrodinger's Victory" (where he wins and we all lose technically because we somehow locked ourselves into a meaningless game-state-ending). All assuming a neutral social context (which is true most of time with me).
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
Not sure where all the hate is coming from - apparently people playing magic don't like to...think? huh...who'd have thought...I don't see how this is "validating morals" - but whatevs.
Anyways, I like your scenario - reminds me of the old mtg puzzles they'd include in Scrye (and if you know what Scrye is, you've been playing for awhile). That said, I think Darrenhabib pointed out the correct line of play from a game-theory perspective for player 2.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I have ended up in the mexician stand off sitaution in a three player game before.
I was deveri bird tribal and I had a bunch of bird tokens in play. Enough to kill one player but swinging would mean i would die to the other player it was the same for the other players at the table. (Even using deveri wouldn't help) Now my bird tokens were being produced by emeria angel so I could wait, and even bad draws were more birds for me. I top deck.. Birthing pod... ooooooh boy. This is what I did, I sac emeria angel for Karmic guide returning Augury owl, I put deveri into play untapping birthing pod Sacing Augury owl.. getting Soraya the falconer, now my bird tokens are big enough to kill both players. man I love birthing pod.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
I considered amending the hypothetical to say that you have, say, shock in hand, so you don't need to trust your opponent to shoot themself in the face, they can just do it precombat for 3 (or you'll know they're backing out of the deal and can set off disk). Obviously the trust element makes things a little trickier, especially with strangers. With a regular group, I feel like you'd know the people who would follow through and the people who are going to say whatever to win. And I guess in that case you say "well, if you weren't such a dick you'd have a 50% chance to win this game", and then blow the disk.
I do think it's really funny that some people are indignant about losing/winning to a coin flip. Clearly you've never been at low life with a mana crypt before. And anyway, isn't winning via topdeck just another kind of coin flip? There's tons of random chance in the game; sometimes it does come down to a strict X% chance to win based on hitting one of your outs. There's no more skill involved in that then there is in a coin flip. The whole game is a matter of chance. Pros understand this - it's all about improving your winrate by a percent at a time - finding those incremental advantages are how pros are made. At the end of the day, it's still luck, even if your skill is what determines the chance, you're still ultimately flipping a "coin".
@darrenhabib: that's why I explicitly said that there are no ways to deal damage in your deck to avoid that easy solution. If you don't take this opportunity to win, you can't win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Of course, cases such as being at 3 or less life with a Mana Crypt are different, since that's a card effect forcing you into the situation.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
As far as negotiating higher win chances...that gets pretty wonky. Player 2 can give the win to either opposing player, but so can player 3. If a "bidding war" begins over player 3 and player 1 "wins" (so a deal between 1 and 3) then player 2 can sabotage the deal by killing player 3. But if a bidding war begins over player 2 and player 1 "wins" (deal between 1 and 2) then player 3 can sabotage the deal by nuking the board and thus "killing" player 2 (I guess I could add to the scenario by saying there are no relevant cards in anyone's library to make it more clear-cut). So I think the only deal that can't be sabotaged by the third party is between 2 and 3, so that's the deal that ultimately has to be made. If one demands higher odds things get weird since in theory that's the best chance for the other player to win, but they still have just as much bargaining power so they could come back the same way. Ultimately I guess it comes down to a game of chicken, essentially. I've always thought that was a weird part of tournament magic. Magic is a game of luck and skill, and you really can't win without some of both. If you never draw a land you're not going to win no matter how good you are (there's probably some belcher counterexample but shut up). The idea that "ohh no, luck is determining a winner rather than skill!!!" is ridiculous. If you want to win via pure skill, go play chess.
I suspect there are 2 reasons why tournaments don't allow coin flipping to determine a winner (a policy that's particularly egregious at my LGS where it's pack-per-win at prereleases with no packs awarded for ties...) - (1) the negative public perception by people who incorrectly think that magic is chess and are aghast that luck could determine the winner, and (2) the risk of breaking gambling laws. Probably more (2) than (1).
I don't see why it matters whether a card is forcing you into the situation. The game state is forcing you into the situation in the hypothetical - if you don't make a deal, guaranteed you both lose. If you do, you've got a 50%. Why is a card creating the situation rather than the gamestate better?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
For that matter, why is determining a game by random chance bad at all? I'd argue it's because skill has been taken out of the equation, which is true if someone just flipped a coin at the start of the match. But what's really happened in the crypt AND the standoff situations is that all the other factors of the game ultimately contributed to a point where it's a simply coin flip over who wins. If less damage had been dealt to the player with the crypt, it would have been 100% win for him. If more damage had been dealt, they'd already be dead, 0% win. But because they were dealt just the right amount of damage, it came down to a 50/50. Same of the standoff - if p2 had fewer than 20 damage on the board, or player 1 had more life, the scenario would be totally different. Or if p3 had more life, or p2 had fewer lands, or p2 had more life...any one of these things change, and it's no longer a 50% winrate game between 2 and 3, it's something else entirely.
My point is that a game that ends in a coin flip isn't simply a no-skill game. In order to get to that point, skills were tested (and plenty of other luck was involved as well), and if those things hadn't worked out that way, most likely it wouldn't have come down to a coin flip.
I wonder if you have the same problem with 2 and 3 agreeing to kill 1 and then call it a draw?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Also, more importantly magic isn't a game where the people who win are the people who are "supposed" to win, whatever that means. I actually have no idea what you mean by that.
The difference between offering $5 and offering to decide the game on a coin flip is that one of those is offering something outside the game? Obviously? That's sort of an important distinction. As far as whether it's collusion, I mean tons of stuff is "collusion" that no one bats an eye at in commander. The important thing is, at the end of the day, everyone is trying to win the game as well as they can. If that means temporarily allying with someone to handle a bigger threat, then that's part of the fun of a multiplayer format, even if you're colluding with someone temporarily, you intend to eventually try to kill them once the larger threat is dealt with. The kind of collusion that's negative to the game is OUTSIDE collusion, i.e. making an agreement outside of the game, which isn't what's happening in the scenario as described. Both players are taking the line that gives them the best possible chance of winning - which is what magic is all about.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
And if you agree that those are both acceptable, then clearly targeting yourself with a banefire isn't the problem on its own. So you might want to come up with a better reason why the wager isn't acceptable.
Aside: "Of course i'm taking player 2 side, he's going to win unless he's stopped." - what a ridiculous sentence. He's put himself in a position where he CAN be stopped, and another player has the motivation to do so. You don't get credit for trying to win. If someone else stops you, then YOU DON'T GET TO WIN.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Player 2 needs to swing at player 1 then Balefire player 3 in the second main phase, anything outside of that line of play risks player 2 giving up his advantage.
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm just reading the arguments as written, not inventing straw men. Don't blame me for you being unclear.
How about the player has a platinum angel out and darien, and banefires himself to negative life to make a bunch of soldiers, but then another player kills the angel in response? Or even simpler, it's the near-death experience situation but an opponent casts lightning bolt in response to the banefire that was attempting to set the player to 1 life?
At this point I'm mostly just poking holes for fun though - let's be more charitable and assume you meant ON PURPOSE killing himself. Well, that happens all the time too. It's called a concession. With the board as-is, player 2 may as well concede. Any move he makes to kill player 1 will cause player 3 to set off the disk, and he will definitely die on player 1's next turn. He cannot win the game as it currently stands, without "colluding" with player 3. He can either choose to use the resources he has to make a deal, or not make a deal and lose 100%.
I have no idea what "scale" you're talking about. Player 3 will set off disk if player 2 attacks player 1 lethally because, if he doesn't, guaranteed he loses right away. If he sets of disk, maybe there's some chance something crazy will happen and he'll have a chance to win. Maybe an opponent will deck himself by miscounting a draw spell or something. Maybe player 1 will have a stroke. Even if it's a .000000001% chance to win, it's better than 0%. It's not "no reason". Even if we assume it's 0% vs 0% though, player 3 has no reason NOT to set off the disk either - it's a totally arbitrary decision. At best player 2 has a 50/50 chance to win, at the whim of player 3.
Sure, 99.9% of players would never consider this line of play, but that doesn't make it wrong. Finding clever, unintuitive plays is the most exciting part of the game. Wagering is the highest EV play for player 2 and 3, therefore they should take it.
Coinflipping - mana crypt decides games already, so that's not a legitimate reason to dislike it. If you're so worried about it, though, you could just say player 2 and 3 declare a draw instead of flipping a coin. Personally I'd rather flip a coin though. I don't like to share the spotlight.
gambling - gambling requires that something be on the line, which there isn't. If you mean "chance", chance has a pivotal role in magic with or without blatant coin flipping. What if rather than flipping a coin, player 2 agrees not to banefire player 3 until his next turn, and it's known that player 3 has 2 cards left with one being a lethal fireball? What's the difference?
colluding - I believe to qualify as collusion it has to be secret, which in this case it isn't, but ignoring that, people ally themselves all the time in commander to deal with a larger problem, which is essentially what's happening here. Player 2 and 3 need to both work together to kill player 1, that's the only way to kill him.
There may well be a problem with this method of play, maybe even a legitimate one - but whatever it may be, I don't think you've found it yet. So if a player makes an attack that guarantees lethal on the next turn, but risks losing if his opponent topdecks lightning bolt - is that "taking all the decision making out of the game?" It's basically the same situation - you're deciding on a play that has some chance of losing the game and some chance of winning, depending upon something random that you have no control over - whether your opponent draws bolt vs whether you lose the coin flip. In both cases, though, you are DECIDING to take that risk because you've decided that your chances of winning are better with that risk than without it. That's the decision making - if either player 2 or 3 thought they had a better chance to win by not taking the wager, they wouldn't take the wager. Just like if taking the big attack gave you a worse chance to win, you wouldn't do it. By "this move" I assume you mean setting off disk? Interesting, but personally I consider there to be only 2 rankings: winning and losing. Dying last is exactly the same as dying first, imo. Often it's the worst player who dies last, because his opponents were more concerned with killing the other, more dangerous players. But you're free to disagree.
--------
Just for fun, I'll argue against myself a little bit.
I think the best argument against the wager so far is probably the one ilovesaprolings made in his first post - player 3 has no way to be sure that player 2 will honor the agreement after killing player 1. Let's say we're playing life-and-death magic and whoever loses dies irl, so winning is absolutely paramount and being honorable or whatever is pretty meaningless. If player 2 decides that he has a 0% chance to trust player 2, then there's no reason to make a wager, and it becomes arbitrary whether he sets off disk, and either player 1 or player 2 will win.
Could also switch to the "player 2 has a shock in hand" scenario, so that player 3 doesn't need to trust player 2. Still doesn't quite work in the death magic scenario, though, since player 2 is still probably just going to attack and hope player 3 decides not to blow everything up, since he has nothing to gain by fulfilling the deal once he's dead. Although obviously it's highly likely player 3 will nuke the board just as a "screw you" for reneging.
One could circumvent this (at least outside the death-magic scenario) by adding incentive to honor the agreement, say collateral being handed over to player 3 until the wager is completed. Might need to get a notary public involved at that point.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
As for making agreements, if someone wants to be a dick like that then fine. I'll never agree to anything they suggest ever again and will make sure any other players we wind up at the same game with know that person can't be trusted to honor an agreement. And if they are just a complete jerk about it, I have no problem letting another player win every game so long as that jerk loses.
For example, in the much-more-reasonable scenario that is this one, except player 3 has actual wincons, the solution is pretty straightforward (the swing-10 at player 1, banefire player 1 for lethal, player 3 sets off disk and then it's a topdeck war for lethal). Player 3 could of course still try to hold the game hostage to the wager if they think it's their best odds of winning, though, and they also have potential to beat player 1 if they topdeck well so board wiping isn't guaranteed suicide, so depending how pliable player 2 is player 3 may or may not be able to finagle the wager out of him - it's roughly the game of chicken mentioned earlier. Anyway, as long as he doesn't go hard-liner on player 2 to try to force the wager, then whether he nukes it and fights player 1, or lets player 2 kill 1 with banefire, the topdeck chances are what it comes down to, rather than an actual coin flip.
As for whether they're satisfying, it's a little funny how human brains work, that you're probably right, yet in the 1-turn-truce deal, if player 3 topdecked a fireball they'd probably be thrilled, even though it's still essentially a coin flip. There is some merit to the fact that player 3 had to decide to include the fireball, so it's a risk that he had control over, but I suspect he'd be no less excited if he were borrowing someone else's deck.
Obviously the wager is a pretty vulcan-y thing to do: I think it's perfectly logical but I suspect very few people would consider doing it in real life. Whether that's because they don't think about it, or because it's just not a satisfying way to win, is debatable. In the life-or-death magic, though, and if hypothetically there's some way to force player 2 to follow through on the wager should he lose, I think any sane human would take the wager, though, since it's the only way for player 2 or player 3 to win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
And people still make deals with you? Either the people you play with are stupid or have a very short memory.
If you go back on your promises people no longer make deals with you. Winning one game isn't worth to lose all the free value you get from deals in future games.