'sall good. It would appear I really opened a can of worms regarding the probabilities though.

That's incorrect.
I chose not to shoot first, I had the opportunity but I gambled on the first shot being a dud and thought (incorrectly or not) that getting the two shots together gave me a better chance to win.
But the bullet was in the first shot and so agent won.

I see what you mean about it always boiling down to 50% chance no matter what way you look at it but there is still an important choice, as you get to choose whether you're heads or tails. If you shoot first you're choosing shots 1, (and assuming your opponent double shoots) 4 and 5. If you don't you're choosing shots 2, 3 and 6. Either way you have a 50% chance of winning, but when the shot is pre-placed only one of those choices will win the game.

Like I said, if I'd had even the vaguest inkling that a first shot would be self-directed, I'd have left it for the lulz. Due to my inherent bias for shooting other people instead of myself, It simply didn't occur me even though I had an active example from the previous game. :)

Also, if I'd rolled a second '1' as the first shot, then I'd have taken it under the principle we used for rerolling during my college D&D days: "The dice have spoken."

That sounds about right.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to represent straight addition. It is more of an "and" clause, where you take the 1/5 shot and the 1/4 shot.

Perhaps they don't matter statistically, a point which I'm willing to concede (simply because with each player choosing half of the chambers, each player has a 50% of winning).

However, taking the two shots feels nicer, so therefore it IS nicer because all other things are equal! And just how often does "all other things being equal" actually hold true? :D

Ah, OK. I see.

And fair enough regarding the choice being nicer because it's nicer

So... all this talk gave me an idea of how to make the last round more interesting if it's just M vs T left. Instead of having it a 50-50 random decision:

Make it a 3-chamber round. Put a deadline when the host will be online (and preferably the players too). Then:

_ Shooting first is statistically the worse choice. You give your opponent a double-shoot so your chance of winning is 33% while his is 66%. So...
_ Not shooting seems like the optimal choice for both players, because come deadline the mod will choose randomly between them giving them a 50% chance each. But...
_ If you don't shoot you run the risk of having your opponent shoot you just seconds before the deadline, in which case you definitely lose (if not by the bullet then by the deadline).

Nice game of pseudo-chicken.

Not sure if this wasn't touched upon already but there is another ugly way to abuse this, especially in 1v1 where it's basically a game-winning move. Just wait till 1 minute or whatever minor period before the deadline and shoot. The remaining player suicides by default.

Yes but you can queue shots. And thete is enough time in 24hrs to fire all...

On second thought, you're right. It could be abused if, after your opponent goes first, you wait with a double shot till just before the deadline.

Not that I think anyone here would do it.

How about just progressive likelyhoods? First shot has 1/n to succeed, second shot 1/(n-1) ... until it gets to a 1/1 chance? With n being number of players +1 or something like that. In that way the one who shoots first has the lowest probability to succeed, which offsets the advantage of going first.

Easy enough to prevent this: Mod adds a "Don't abuse the rules" rule, and kills you instead for abusing the spirit of the rules/game. Or uses mod discretion and just doesn't show up until the other guy has submitted a counter shot.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all the good fellas!

Merry Gogmas to all of you too!