Aram Simonian December 2011

the owner collects a rent every time another player steps on the property. The rules are not very complicated.g.g. The rules of the game are also available online. he is allowed to build houses or hotels on these properties. he can (or rather should) purchase available properties which his token lands on. which are the Cash. Beside the player-owned wealth. or ‘until the end’ scenario. Houses and Cash reserves. that the cash can be considered to be unlimited without any problems. However. there are also bank resources representing the available Properties. Railroads. The wealth can be basically differentiated into three domains. 2 Boundaries of the model Firstly. Beside the ordinary properties there are also Utilities and Railroads which have slightly different rent principles. but to get a general overview. in other words what should be modeled and what can be neglected with minor impact on results. However. so I borrowed the game from one of my friends and played it several times. 2. which would be probably even impossible with the Vensim software. The principle of the game is to move one’s token around the game plan according to the roll of two dices. but this is not that much important for my model. e. which drastically increases the rent collected from the other players. which can break even the best strategy into pieces. there is so much cash in the bank. Examples of such online games are [3] and [4]. too. e. the bank resources are limited. The properties are divided into several groups with different purchase prices and rent distinguished by different colors. As the player moves around the board. I had to select the boundaries of the model and decide. but there is quite significant chance factor that often remarkably influences the game. Properties (Lots. what is really important in the game. There are specific wealth flows between particular domains of wealth. Therefore I introduce some simplifications that allow me to focus on the general idea of the game.1 Introduction The aim of this project work is to create a Vensim [1] model of the Monopoly board game in order to find general dynamics of the game as well as suitability of different strategies. Once the property has its owner. so it is important to include these limits into the model. I had to familiarize myself with the game and its rules. Each player’s wealth 1 . my goal is not to exactly model the game with all its details. at [2] and there are some online flash versions of the monopoly game.1 Wealth differentiation Every player in the game is assessed according to the wealth that he is able to accumulate. When the player manages to own all properties from one color. which lasts until there’s only one player in the game and all the others have bankrupted. As I have found out later when playing the game. as the model would get very complicated and I wouldn’t be able to identify all the dependencies properly. and Utilities) and Houses (also including hotels). with a time limit after which everyone counts his/her wealth and the most wealthy player wins. too. The chance factor in the game is caused by the influence of the dice roll and special Chance and Community Chest cards. There are several possible variants of the game scenario. though. Attempting to make a too precise model of the game could be contra productive. First of all. from which the latter does not follow the original Monopoly rules very precisely. so these are to be modeled separately.

it is nearly impossible to implement something like ‘selling or buying one whole property at a time’. but I have merged them together into one stock and have increased the number of available houses in the game about the equivalent of the excluded hotels.). so these features have to be the stock variables in the model. It can rather extend the game about a few rounds. 2 . but it also lowers their incomes as they cannot collect rents on the mortgaged properties. which will be described in part 4. but when I use average property price. The challenge of modeling is to find and identify the feedback loops that cause changes to these variables and change the state of the game every round. Also the purchase price of the houses and hotels vary according to the property on which the house is about to be built. The mortgage allows players to ‘borrow’ some money from bank. in the beginning of the game. but this would make the model complicated in my opinion. I have left the mortgaging out. 2. the mortgaging of properties hardly ever helps due to reinforcing feedback loops described in part 3.together with the bank’s wealth describe the immediate state of the game. so owning more than five properties gives a high probability of owning a monopoly. players sell the houses/properties to the bank. the trades have at least approximately the same outcome for both trading sides and just enable the players to achieve monopoly. And secondly. Instead of mortgaging. when the loosing players try to survive. Therefore I assume in the model that if a player owns more than five properties. because in my opinion it would only bring complications to the model (there cannot be any houses on the mortgaged property etc. but with the introduced concept of average property it is not possible to determine whether a player has achieved a monopoly or not. but this is compensated by computation of average rent collected by a particular player. a hotel simply represents an equivalent of five houses. If the player gets into trouble in the end of the game. have to pay high rent don’t have enough cash and don’t want to sell properties or houses. Firstly. so my model in fact allows buying properties part-by-part and missing cash is not that much limiting factor for the purchase of the properties any more. According to my experience with the game. that in the model the player can virtually build a house on any property owned (not only on monopoly properties). In addition. My original idea was to use four classes of properties according to the height of their price and rent (and also location on the game board). when the players are purchasing a lot of properties and want to purchase another one even though they don’t have enough cash. the players are trading the purchased properties one with each other. the mortgages occur mainly in two cases. Here another impreciseness occur. he can build houses on them. Regarding the aim and scope of the model. The trade of properties between players is assumed to happed ‘in background’ and is not modeled. so I finally decided to neglect those differences and use average property price and rent for all properties. I have to use average house price as well. because when the players are reasonable. This means that I also neglected the Railroads and Utilities and merged them with the ordinary Lots. Another issue is mortgaging of the owned properties. Because Vensim is not a time-discrete event simulator.2 Simplifications In the real game the properties differ in price and rents. in the end of the game. In my experience. so I do not model houses and hotels separately. In the real game a player can purchase houses only when he completes a monopoly (all lots from one color).

It would be good to have the possibility to change number of players participating in the game. the maintenance of the model gets really lengthy with higher number of players (every change has to be made for every player separately). even though the implementation would not be too complicated. but in the first step I extracted the dependencies for one player. Simplified causal diagram for one player with marked important reinforcing and balancing loops is shown in Figure 3-1. as well as the ones that force the player to pay something.I am also not modeling the jail. With growing numbers of players the number of such dependencies grows and because Vensim does not provide any kind of subsystem creation as known for example from Simulink. property and house acquisition for the rounds spent in jail. which will cause him problems in further phases of the game. but that’s not my point. Including jail into the model would for example enable me to study influence of going to jail in different phases of the game. Furthermore the cards of type ‘go to …’ have no sense if I am not modeling every concrete property separately. As shown later in parts 3 and 4. because one doesn’t have to pay any rents. in the late phases of the game. I have assumed that the number of players in the game is four. In fact there is a strong interaction between the players. it can be even useful to go to jail. It is at once many enough to show the dynamics of the game and little enough to preserve some reasonable complexity of the model. It would just mean stopping player’s expenses. but can collect the rents from owned properties. so I decided not to include it into the model. Going to jail in the beginning of the game can cause problems to the player because he might not manage to buy that many properties as his opponents. Figure 3-1 Simplified causal loop diagram for one player 3 . As a result. so they cancel out overall. On the other hand. too. my model uses the same structure for every player. Community Chest and Chance cards have been omitted. but Vensim is not the right simulation tool then. Going to jail is purely a question of luck. so the next step was to think further about the dependencies of all the included variables. 3 Finding fundamental feedback loops In previous part I decided what to model and what to omit. There are some which can help the player to get some cash. There are lots of dependencies and flows between particular players.

which is typical for investment. This loop also causes a non-minimal phase behavior. 3. who has more extra cash and can invest even more massively. whereas the other four views contain the player-specific variables and structures for respective players. the game could end up in equilibrium and there would be no winner. It describes the bank limited resources (available properties and houses) and defines constants that are reused for all players. In fact buying houses is also influenced by the number of properties owned (the more properties. R3 The more properties the player owns. also the variables are named the same and differ only in the player index number. As the players’ models are using the same structure. but the investment returns back later in a form of higher incomes. B2 Two balancing loops based on the fact that the player has to spend money on property and house acquisition. I’ll briefly describe common constants and variables. the levels of cash drop. because the balancing loops are dominant. which decreases expenses of the player. they cannot invest as they would like to. but it has quite complex structure due to player interactions.     In the beginning of the game when everyone buys properties.Monopoly is a kind of a path dependent system [5]. Here it is obvious that the reinforcing loops can work both ways – positive and negative. At first I tried to model everything at one place. The first view contains the constants. because other players will step on his properties more often. I therefore divided the model into five views with use of shadow variables. but the causal diagram could become unclear so I left this arrow out.) 4 Model structure and specifications The model is not very complicated. which decreases his expenses and allows him to buy even more properties. the more properties he can afford to buy (either from bank or other players). In further phases of the game when there are no more available properties and the offer of houses is also limited. (If the reinforcing loops wouldn’t prevail. his situation gets even better (or worse) thanks to the reinforcing feedback loops and for the other players it is nearly impossible to change anything about that. the balancing loops are weakened and the reinforcing loops prevail. which is very important. lookups and level variables common for all players. the more houses can be purchased). At first. there is a drop of cash when purchasing the property. but it turned out that the model would be very confusing. which increases his incomes from every round.1 Common part of the model The common part of the model is shown in Figure 4-1. R4 If the player collects high rents from others. which means that if the player starts to win (or lose). Still playing is number of players that have not bankrupted yet and is used for rent 4 . R2 Similar to the R1 with the only difference that the houses increase the rent collected and not the frequency of collection.1 Loops description  R1 The more cash the player has. 4. the more often he lands on his own properties where he doesn’t have to pay rent. B1.

192661.(0.15).0.(4.899123).(0. 1 .0921053).1).492355.0.(1.0). constants. 1 . 0) Total houses=82 Total properties=28 Figure 4-1 Common part of the model (bank resources.(3.0.(-1000.0)-(1.706422.( dependence"([(0. Average rent.0.(0. 1 .0611621.0.(5.(0.1. Available houses= INTEG (Players selling houses-Players buying houses.1).(0.0. Buying strategy-* are lookup variables that are used to determine the player’s behavior depending on the cash he has.(0.929825).1)]. Total properties and houses were determined from the original game.less aggressive"([(0.0).1)].0.0). House-rent dependence is a lookup describing the multiplicative coefficient of rent collected on player’s properties in dependence on average number of houses per property.0)-(1000.0).596491).37.602446.(1000.(0. (0.982456).46.Total properties) Average house price=125 Average number of rounds to pass through start=4 Average property price=200 Average rent=20 "Buying strategy .5).1).964912).(2.155963.741228).60)].(0.collection computation.Total houses) Available properties= INTEG (Players selling properties-Players buying properties. (0.0.1)) "Buying strategy .careful"([(0.(0.1).(0. 0)+IF THEN ELSE(Portfolio4 > 0.842105).107034.25).0)-(1.0.828947).0)-(10.929825).(1.5).219298). 1 .0.223242.0.(0.1)) "Buying strategy .247706.(0.12844.293578.(0.(1. property and house price.aggressive"([(-1000.(1000.5).55)) Income from pass through start="Pass-through-start cash"/Average number of rounds to pass through start Initial cash=1500 Min properties for house=5 "Pass-through-start cash"=200 Players buying houses=Buying houses1+Buying houses2+Buying houses3+Buying houses4 Players buying properties=Buying properties1+Buying properties2+Buying properties3+Buying properties4 Players selling houses=Selling houses1+Selling houses2+Selling houses3+Selling houses4 Players selling properties=Selling properties1+Selling properties2+Selling properties3+Selling properties4 Still playing=IF THEN ELSE(Portfolio1 > 0. 0)+IF THEN ELSE(Portfolio2 > 0. lookups) 5 .0.10)].522936.1)) "House . 0)+ +IF THEN ELSE(Portfolio3 > 0.(0.0.346491). (0.0).(1000.409786.(0.

4. (Average rent paid to1*Owned properties1+Average rent paid to2*Owned properties2+ Average rent paid to3*Owned properties3)/Others owned properties4. Figure 4-2 Player-specific part of the model Average rent paid by4=IF THEN ELSE(Others owned properties4 > 0. IF THEN ELSE(Owned properties4<Min properties for house. MAX(0. (Owned properties4-4)*Willingness to buy houses4))))) Buying properties4=MAX(0. 0) Average rent paid to4=IF THEN ELSE(Portfolio4 > 0. MIN((Cash4-Paid to others4)/Average property price. I only present one sample view in Figure 4-2 with its specifications below. 0. MIN(Extra cash4/Average house price. MIN(Owned properties4*5-Owned houses4.Initial cash) Expenses4=MIN(Cash4+Income from pass through start+Paid by others4.2 Player-specific part of the model Splitting model into several views brings better legibility. Average rent*"House . but on the other hand some of the dependencies may not be that obvious because of the use of shadow variables. Available properties/Total properties*Willingness to buy properties4))) Cash4= INTEG ( Incomes4-Expenses4.To be paid4) Extra cash4=Cash4-Paid to others4-Property cost4 House cost4=Buying houses4*Average house price House per property4=IF THEN ELSE(Owned properties4 <= dependence"(House per property4). As the views for particular players differ only in the strategy lookup variable. MIN(Available houses /4. 0) Buying houses4=MAX(0. Owned houses4/Owned properties4) 6 . 0.

which is a random variable with normal distribution (mean value is 1) and acts as a multiplicative factor for the money collected on rents every round (Paid by others). Firstly. which is determined as a weighted average of average rents collected by the other players. As well. To ensure that the Cash doesn’t go negative. 2*(To be paid4-Expenses4)/Average house price)) Selling properties4=MIN(Owned properties4. Owned properties4/Total properties*Average rent paid to4* (Still playing-1))*Visiting chance4 Paid to 4=Paid to others1+Paid to others2+Paid to others3 Paid to others4=Average rent paid by4*Others owned properties4/Total properties Portfolio4=Cash4+Owned houses4*Average house price+Owned properties4*Average property price Property cost4=Buying properties4*Average property price Selling houses4=MAX(0. 4 ) Willingness to buy houses4="Buying strategy . There occurred some problems with this limitation that I successfully solved and are described in section 6. 7 . the last named had to be removed from the equation for Incomes because of reasons described in section 6.0) Owned properties4= INTEG (Buying properties4-Selling properties4.0) Paid by others4=MAX(0. the Expenses have to be limited. the player can collect three times more money per round that he would collect if there were only two players under the same circumstances.5*Average property price*Selling properties4 Incomes4=Income from pass through start+Paid by others4 Others owned properties4=Owned properties1+Owned properties2+Owned properties3 Owned houses4= INTEG (Buying houses4-Selling houses4. This is being modeled by the Visiting chance. in the real game.5*Average house price*Selling houses4 Income from selling properties4=0. I’ve added a random factor called Visiting chance to differentiate the players with the same strategies. a random factor could be added to the expenses. when there are four players in the game. two players with exactly the same strategies won’t be doing same due to their good or bad luck. which determines the height of Average rent paid to the player and the number of players that are still playing (have not bankrupted yet). The players with the same strategies would achieve exactly the same results without the random variable. but it is unnecessary. which represent the rents that the player pays every round when stepping on opponents’ properties. In addition. The money Paid to others is proportional to the fraction of the properties owned by the other players (Others owned properties) and the Average rent paid by the player. MIN(Owned houses4. secondly the money he collects every round from rents paid by the other players and finally also the money from selling owned houses and properties. Of course. 2* (To be paid4-Expenses4-Income from selling houses4)/Average property price) To be paid4=Property cost4+Paid to others4+House cost4 Visiting chance4=RANDOM NORMAL( 0. The money Paid by others are proportional to the fraction of properties the player owns (in fact probability that the others step on some of his properties). The Expenses consist of investments into properties and houses and the money Paid to others. However.less aggressive"(Extra cash4/Initial cash) Willingness to buy properties4="Buying strategy .3 . The Cash is changed by money flows Incomes and Expenses. 1 . where fractions of owned properties of respective users are used as weights. 1.5 . Obviously. the money the player gets every time he passes through start. The core of the model is formed by the level variables representing the wealth of the player.less aggressive"((Cash4-Paid to others4)/ Initial cash) The player-specific part is more complicated than the common part.5 .Income from selling houses4=0. The Incomes consist of several parts. 0. so I’ll give a description of the purpose of the variables. average number of Houses per property. which is undesirable.

Selling houses takes place whenever the player doesn’t have enough cash to pay required rents in the actual round.The Owned properties represent the number of properties the player managed to acquire. so I omitted this possibility even though it can slightly bias the results. that is well described by the model. The Selling properties is limited to the number of Owned properties so that the value of the stock could not get below zero. In addition. It is used to determine how many players are still playing (players with 0 portfolio are considered bankrupted). people tend to first buy properties and invest into houses later. there is the Portfolio variable for each player. the strong influence of chance can enable anyone to win in the Monopoly game. However. Buying properties depends on the fraction of properties that are still available for purchase (in fact probability that the player steps on a property without owner) and on the Willingness to buy properties. which means that if the player does not have enough cash. testing and documenting would be very difficult and time demanding. the players would rather sell the properties one to another. I’ll describe the Owned houses and related variables. It would be possible to think of many sophisticated strategies. Finally. The willingness is driven by the spare cash that the player can invest into properties and his buying strategy. which would even increase the expenses. but in the model I could not decide to which player the property should be sold. Selling properties is considered to be the last possibility to cover expenses. Beside that it is also useful when one wants to observe the overall development of the state of the game. but people playing the game think of acquisitions as of spending money. It describes the total wealth the player has accumulated in cash and value of owned properties and houses. In real game the player’s decisions not only depend on the spare cash he has. so that the Owned houses could not go negative. but implementing any kind of game theory decision making in Vensim.2. 5 Strategies There are many strategies how to play the game which can be more or less successful under different circumstances. he first sells houses and he doesn’t sell properties until he runs out of houses. Next. The same Buying strategy is used for both house and property acquisition. ‘whether to buy’ or ‘when to buy’. It would be possible to use separate strategies. so I decided to base the strategy on the amount of cash the user has available. However. which drops the Buying houses to zero if the House per property reaches 5 houses (equivalent of hotel). not important whether spending them on properties or houses. the model behaves well even with this simplified decision making. so the way of thinking is very similar in both cases. It is limited. which depends on the extra cash that the player can invest after paying rents to the others and after property investments and on the Buying strategy. I also assume that the player has the same 8 . I use a constraint on the Owned houses number. but also on other factors like the situation of the other players. actual position on the game board etc. In real game. Therefore the Willingness to buy properties (together with the Willingness to buy houses) implements the strategy of the player. The reason is obvious – selling properties increases probability of stepping on others’ properties. The buying rate is driven by number of owned properties and Willingness to buy houses. Buying houses can start when the player owns at least five properties as described in section 2. That is reasonable because the player can influence the game only by decisions of a kind ‘what to buy’. In my model the properties are considered to be sold only to bank for half of purchase price.

from which one is ‘reasonable’ and the two others represent rather extreme cases (extremely aggressive on one hand and careful on the other hand). Figure 5-1 Lookup variables for different strategies (Cash/Initial cash ratio on the horizontal axis. one will lose his cash reserves in some time whatever their height is. Some of the problems were caused by bad modeling concept. In the beginning it is really important to get as many properties as possible (here also the luck plays significant role). the Less aggressive strategy stops investments only when the cash drops really significantly. On the other hand. Willingness to buy on the vertical axis) The Aggressive strategy simply buys everything available until it runs out of money. whereas others were caused by the simulation software and its solver. Therefore it is optimal to be on the edge of having enough money to pay the rents to others. This is effective until the moment when it runs out of money because then the possessions are sold to bank and the player is losing 50% of his investments. because under pressure the player cannot sell the possessions for the market price. Finally. there is put different emphasis on property and house acquisition in different phases of the game. but only for a much lower price.strategy throughout the whole game. because if the other players invest. it turned out that trying to accumulate too big cash reserves does not make any sense. is most likely to have highest expenses on rents in the further phases. because the one who doesn’t manage to buy enough properties. After the first phase it is essential to achieve a monopoly and start the house construction to increase collected rents because otherwise the opponents will do so and they will exploit the player’s resources earlier than he is able to make any kind of investment. (In my model the possessions are sold to bank for 50% of market price. it is reasonable to keep in mind possible expenses and maintain some cash reserve. While experimenting with different strategies during the model development as well as during the games played. the Careful strategy creates unnecessarily high cash reserves and hesitates to invest when the cash level drops. because when one runs out of money. On the other hand. The lookup graphs for the three different strategies are shown in Figure 5-1. In fact. which is wastage of resources.) I decided to model three different strategies. 9 . he has to start selling houses and properties. 6 Simulation issues In this section I would like to describe some difficulties I encountered during the modeling as well as the solutions of the problems. but invest the whole rest of cash into properties or houses.

the cash is leaking. Furthermore. which means they are saving cash for that. In the next iteration. but another problem emerged. the model was not unstable any more.3 Time step The model is using time step 1. If the time step is smaller than 1.2 Cash leakage With limitation of flows. 6. only a respective part of the limit was subtracted from the cash. even though they paid less money than they should have paid. however. The problem is that the solver adds value of positive inflow (Incomes) at the end of iteration. The reason was that I did not limit the stocks to non-negative values. I had to limit the flows connected to the stocks using MIN. This money ‘coming from nowhere’ caused 10 . Therefore the limit of Expenses has to be set to (Cash+Incomes). even though some small oscillations can occur. Owned properties. Finally I excluded Income from selling houses and properties from the equation for Incomes. so they are used just for observing the cash flows in the model now (properties and houses are still sold to cover the missing cash. it kept being unstable. because in a real game the players have to purchase whole property at once. which caused a situation when there were two players left and both of them were making more and more money and none of them bankrupted. As a result. so that they were virtually still paying rents. the limit is re-computed and again only part of it is subtracted etc. because they are considered to be immediately spent for the rents coverage). because otherwise there is a money leakage. As Vensim does not allow direct limiting of the value of level variables to a certain range. 6. Because there are sometimes minor oscillations due to the time step 1. usage of Incomes in equation for Expenses creates an algebraic loop which disables running the simulation. None of the players ever bankrupted because their Cash level never reached zero. etc.4 Bankrupt players’ exclusion The average income from rents per round for a player depends amongst other factors also on the number of opponents that are still playing. MAX and IF THEN ELSE functions. so the value of Cash at the end of every round was equal to Incomes. such oscillations can likely occur in the real game as well. but the problem of cash leakage emerged again and again the problem was caused by the solver in combination with the limitation of Expenses. 6. The oscillations disappeared. I also tried decreasing the time step. Such situation is should only happen when the player is already bankrupting. However. there is an exponential transient with base 1/TIMESTEP instead of bankruptcy and during this transient. but the incomes from the sale are not included into Incomes. which I think is the closest to discrete character of the game. This problem was caused by the fact that I did not exclude the bankrupt players from the simulation.) can go negative.6.1 Stocks’ value limitation When I ran first simulations of the ‘working’ version of the model. Therefore I decided to preserve the time step 1. then they start to save cash again etc. In the very first version of the model I omitted this dependence. It took me a longer time to find the source of this error. It is essential for the stability of the model that none of the stocks (Cash. then they purchase the property (cash drops). Finally I found out that it was caused by the Expenses flow limitation to a maximum of Cash value.

Neither had I succeeded when looking for some online database of results. because I am missing reliable validation data. When everyone refused to play the game. I have played the game several times not only to understand the main principles. With a small set of validation data the validation is not reliable. 11 .the unlimited growth. Properties or Portfolio development throughout the game). the validation could be done in a following way: run many simulations with the same scenario and different seeds for the random variables. 7 Testing and validation I have tested the behavior of final version of the model. because it is always much easier to find an error after a few changes in the model than look for errors in nearly finished model. If I had the time resources. To get representative validation data. Cash. because the careful players don’t acquire enough properties and the aggressive player destroys himself with too big investments. This problem was fixed by adding variable Still playing to the model. as well as the working versions during development. Like this I for example found out that there is a cash leakage because the players were paying less money than they should have paid and didn’t bankrupt for several rounds even though they should. 2-less aggressive. which would be very time demanding and also exhausting. I have even forced my friends to play according to the presented strategies. The problem of these games is that I don’t know the strategy of the opponents. so the data would be useless for me.g. play many real games according to given scenario and then compare mean statistical data from both sources (e. but also to get some ‘real’ data. but these data are not representative because of the chance factor in the game. 3 and 4-careful players The model does not fit the data from real game very much. I was thinking of the online versions of the game. I cannot properly validate the model.1 Scenario 1: 1-aggressive. we would have to play at least tens of games. which indicates how many players have not bankrupt yet according to the values of their portfolios. I also checked that the values of all variables belong to allowed ranges. The only thing that is fitted is the final ranking of the players. I always inspected all the important variables in context and checked that I can understand and explain all changes that were going on. The development of portfolios is shown in Figure 8-1. 8 Results 8.

2.Less aggressive.. but the simulation ran until the final time which was set to 60 rounds. so the data plotted are just simulated data.Aggressive.. I have no validation data for these.Careful players) Other statistics are shown in Figure 8-2 to give an overview on the simulation. There is obvious drop in player2’s portfolio growth in the 50th round.Figure 8-1 Portfolio development (1.. because from this point onwards he doesn’t collect rents from opponents. The game ends in 50th round when the player1 bankrupts. 3 and 4. Figure 8-2 Statistical simulation data for ALCC scenario 12 .

Figure 8-3 Portfolio development (1.Less aggressive. 2..2 Scenario 2: 1-less aggressive.3 and 4-aggressive I tried to verify this scenario in real games. too..8. 2.Aggressive players) Again.3 and 4. the other statistical data are shown to give overview of the model behavior in Figure 8-4. Figure 8-4 Statistical simulation data for LAAA scenario 13 . so the portfolio data are compared to validation data.

the random noise added through the Visiting chance variables can switch ranking of the players. It is also easy to define new buying strategies. 14 . but the structure is not suitable for higher number of players.3 Chance influence Because the system is path dependent.g. The model is enclosed in the archive and it allows simulating any kind of scenario for four players simply by changing the shadowing lookup variables for property and house acquisition. According to the results of the proper validation. add property mortgaging or player-to-player property trading. because then the model becomes unsustainably large and its maintenance very laborious. However. I have described the dynamics and dependencies of the game but as I am not an expert monopoly player. the Less aggressive gives the best results as expected. where the main problem is to collect a representative set of validation data. where player1 is careful and all the others play aggressively. The other two strategies have obvious limits and their success depends on circumstances. add dependence of strategy on the phase of the game (strategy would change with time). I cannot be completely sure about the strategies. it may be better for example to separate Buying strategy lookups for properties and houses. which are in my opinion the simplifications that could most influence the results. The model. Further work would include proper validation of the model. The model has quite clear structure. may still be too simple. which I have estimated. As shown in Figure 8-5 .8. just a change of seed of the careful player’s Visiting chance can remarkably change the results. the Aggressive strategy still gives better results than the Careful one. even though working fine. From the three presented strategies. The sensitivity to chance can be demonstrated e. on the CAAA scenario. Figure 8-5 Chance influence (careful player doesn’t have to be the first bankrupt) 9 Conclusion I have familiarized myself with the Monopoly game quite closely and developed a model that behaves reasonably according to my limited experience with the game.

tripod. [Online]. Monopoly Game online.htm Vensim PLE Simulation Software. [Online]. Business Dynamics.pogo.vensim. [Online].10 References [ 1] [ 2] [ 3] [ 4] [ 5] John D. Monopoly Game online. http://www. [Online].html 15 .hubworld. Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex Official Monopoly Rules Page. Sterman. http://www.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.