So Long Sucker: Endgame Analysis

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2403.17302
• Title: So Long Sucker: Endgame Analysis
• Authors: Jean-Lou De Carufel (University of Ottawa), Marie Rose Jerade (University of Ottawa)
• Classification: math.CO (Combinatorics), cs.GT (Game Theory)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17302

Abstract

So Long Sucker is a strategic board game requiring four players, each possessing c tokens of a designated color, with the game board consisting of k empty piles. The game features complex rules including: players taking turns in non-fixed order, agreements between players that can be broken at any time, and players winning without possessing tokens. A primary research interest lies in determining when players possess winning strategies. The game progresses from four players through successive elimination until only the winner remains. To investigate winning strategies, this paper focuses on endgame scenarios: when only two players, Blue and Red, remain with only their respective colored tokens. Through detailed case analysis, the paper characterizes Blue's winning scenarios and strategies.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

So Long Sucker was developed by Mel Hausner, John Nash, Lloyd Shapley, and Martin Shubik in 1964, and is a deterministic board game of perfect information. The game is classified as a combinatorial game with non-constant-sum properties. Its uniqueness lies in complex social dynamics, including coalition formation, betrayal, and psychological gameplay.

Research Motivation

1. Theoretical Gap: Despite widespread discussion in game theory research, rigorous mathematical analysis from a mathematical perspective is nearly absent. Existing research primarily focuses on the sociopsychological aspects of the game.
2. Complexity Challenges: The game state space is enormous, and rules permitting multiple deviations make complete analysis extremely difficult.
3. Practical Value: Understanding winning strategies is significant for game theory and algorithmic game theory.
4. Progressive Analysis: By first analyzing simplified endgame scenarios (two players, two colors), the foundation is laid for more complex cases.

Core Contributions

1. First Mathematical Analysis: Provides the first rigorous mathematical analysis framework for So Long Sucker
2. Complete Characterization of Winning Conditions: Provides necessary and sufficient winning conditions for two-player, two-color endgame scenarios
3. Proof of Strategy S Optimality: Proves that Strategy S is optimal in all winning scenarios
4. Classification Analysis Framework: Establishes analysis frameworks for different board types including Type I and Type II
5. Inductive Proof Methodology: Develops inductive proof techniques applicable to analysis of this class of games

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Investigates two-player, two-color So Long Sucker endgame scenarios, where:

• Input: Board state B = (ke, kr, kb, ℓ, h), player state B = (mb, mr) and R = (nb, nr)
• Output: Determines which player possesses a winning strategy
• Constraints: Only blue and red tokens; only Blue and Red players

Simplified Game Rules

In the two-player, two-color scenario, the original game rules are significantly simplified:

Key Theorems

Theorem 2.1 (Same Active Player): If player X makes any of the following moves, X remains the active player:

1. Place opponent-colored tokens on an empty pile
2. Place opponent-colored tokens on a player's own color pile
3. Place own-colored tokens on a player's own color pile

Theorem 2.2 (Different Active Player): If player X makes any of the following moves, opponent Y becomes the active player:

1. Place own-colored tokens on an empty pile
2. Place own-colored tokens on opponent's color pile
3. Place opponent-colored tokens on opponent's color pile

Strategy S Definition

Definition 2.6 (Strategy S): For active player X possessing at least one own-colored token:

1. Capture all own-colored piles, discard opponent-colored tokens (if any), otherwise discard own-colored tokens
2. Discard all captured tokens (opponent-colored tokens)
3. Place own-colored tokens on the longest opponent-colored pile; if none exists, place on an empty pile

Technical Innovations

Classification Analysis Framework

The paper establishes a systematic board classification:

1. Type I Boards: B = (ke, kr, kb, ℓ, 0), where ℓ ∈ {0,1}
2. Generalized Type I Boards: B = (ke, kr, kb, ℓ, 0), ℓ ≥ 0
3. Type II Boards: B = (ke, kr, kb, 1, 1)
4. Generalized Type II Boards: B = (ke, kr, kb, 1, h), h ≥ 1

Inductive Proof Techniques

Different inductive parameters are used for different board types:

• Type I: Induction on nb + nr
• Generalized Type I: Induction on ℓ and parameter ν
• Type II: Induction on mb + mr
• Generalized Type II: Induction on h and parameter μ

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Analysis Method

The paper employs pure theoretical analysis methods, establishing results through rigorous mathematical proofs rather than experimental verification.

Proof Strategy

1. Base Cases: Analysis of the simplest game states
2. Inductive Steps: Proof that complex states can be reduced to known cases
3. Completeness: Ensures all possible game states are covered

Case Analysis

The paper provides detailed game progression examples, demonstrating how rules apply in actual gameplay.

Main Results

Core Theorem

Theorem 5.4 (Final Theorem): Let B = (ke, kr, kb, ℓ, h), B = (mb, mr), R = (nb, nr), and B be the active player. Then B possesses a winning strategy if and only if:

mb > 0 and (nr = 0 or mb + Σ|βi|b > nr + Σ|ρi|r - max{|ρi|r})

where βi denotes long blue piles and ρi denotes long red piles.

Classification Results

Type I Boards (Theorem 3.4)

B wins if and only if mb > nr

Generalized Type I Boards (Theorem 3.10)

B wins if and only if:

mb > 0 and (nr = 0 or mb > nr + Σ|ρi|r - max{|ρi|r})

Type II Boards (Theorem 4.7)

B wins if and only if mb > 0 and mb + |β|b > nr

Generalized Type II Boards (Theorem 4.12)

B wins if and only if:

mb > 0 and mb + Σ|βi|b > nr

Strategy Optimality

Important Conclusion: In all cases, when a player possesses a winning strategy, Strategy S is such a winning strategy.

Related Work

Historical Research

1. Original Paper: Original game description by Hausner et al. (1964)
2. Sociopsychological Research: Hofstede and Tipton (2011) studying player behavior
3. Cultural Analysis: Guerra-Pujol (2017) drawing parallels with Breaking Bad
4. AI Applications: Adak and Sharan (2024) applying deep reinforcement learning

Research Gaps

• Absence of rigorous mathematical analysis
• Lack of characterization of winning strategies
• Weak theoretical foundations

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Complete Characterization: Provides complete characterization of winning conditions for two-player, two-color scenarios
2. Strategy Uniformity: Strategy S is optimal in all winning scenarios
3. Decidability: Observers can immediately determine which player possesses a winning strategy

Limitations

1. Scope Restriction: Analyzes only two-player, two-color scenarios
2. Complexity: Analysis of the complete four-player game remains difficult
3. Practical Utility: Limited practical application value of theoretical results in actual gameplay

Future Directions

1. Three-Color Analysis: Extension to two-player, three-color scenarios
2. Nash Equilibrium: Investigation of game Nash equilibria
3. Economic Applications: Analysis from economic perspective regarding risk aversion
4. Social Dynamics: Integration with psychological research on player behavior

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Pioneering Work: First rigorous mathematical analysis of this game
2. Rigorous Methodology: Employs comprehensive case analysis and inductive proofs
3. Complete Results: Provides complete characterization of necessary and sufficient conditions
4. Technical Innovation: Develops applicable analysis frameworks and proof techniques
5. Clear Writing: Logical structure and detailed proofs

Weaknesses

1. Limited Applicability: Results apply only to highly simplified game scenarios
2. Practical Value: Limited guidance for actual game players
3. Extension Difficulty: Expansion to more complex scenarios faces substantial challenges
4. Verification Absence: Lacks computational or experimental verification

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new analysis case for combinatorial game theory
2. Methodological Value: Analysis framework may apply to other complex games
3. Academic Significance: Fills theoretical analysis gap for this game
4. Inspirational Value: Provides foundation and direction for subsequent research

Applicable Scenarios

1. Game Theory Research: Serves as theoretical foundation for complex game analysis
2. Algorithm Design: Provides theoretical guidance for game algorithms
3. Educational Applications: Serves as case study for game theory courses
4. AI Training: Provides theoretical benchmark for reinforcement learning

References

The paper cites 17 relevant references, covering original game description, sociopsychological research, AI applications, and other aspects. Key references include:

1. Hausner, M., Nash, J., Shapley, L., & Shubik, M. (1964). So Long Sucker - A Four-Person Game.
2. Hofstede, G. J., & Tipton Murff, E. (2011). Repurposing an Old Game for an International World.
3. Adak, C., & Sharan, M. (2024). Reinforcing Competitive Multi-Agents for Playing So Long Sucker.

This paper provides a rigorous mathematical framework for a classical yet theoretically underanalyzed game. Although the analysis scope is limited, it establishes an important foundation for further research in this field. Its methodological value may exceed the concrete results, providing valuable reference for analysis of other complex games.