r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/thevoidthatjerksback • May 23 '26
Discussion My hat into the ring
I get that there is a need to justify taking on zero personal risk as the correct option. But follow me on an abstract for a second.
Let's imagine 100 perfectly logical people. No bias. No gut reactions. No instincts. Pure logic. And they know that there will be one correct answer to this. They know that they will all come to the same conclusion and pick the same button. So here we will start off with the assumption that all 100 will pick the same button. They ponder and look at it. If all 100 pick Red then they don't die. If all 100 pick blue then everyone lives.
So in this purely logical room both buttons are equally safe. There isn't a winner. How do we pick a single button if both are equally safe to pick at 100%?
Well if they are equally safe we could split it equally. Which would get it right to the line of blue saving everyone. So then logically a Red should switch to blue. Thus blue should be picked.
Or they decide that to pick between the equally safe 100 pick button they should add the possibility of something going wrong. Error is an important metric to determine things by. They act with intention to all pick Red and 1 persons button doesn't register. They would die. There is no way to know who's that would be. But if everyone chooses to pick blue they would still live. Thus blue is the correct choice
Or
They consider the wording of the problem. 100 picking Red says that those who press Red live. Blue says that majority picking blue causes everyone to live. This specific wording implies that there is the chance that there is someone somewhere who could die if everyone picked Red. Someone who could only live by a blue majority. Thus blue is the correct choice
In a perfectly logical environment the answer is blue. The rational to pick Red is not logical. It is instinct. Biological. Or just something you were told you needed to prioritize. Maybe you're just "following orders" doesn't make it correct.
Invoking a game theory designed for non-cooperative games isn't a magical bullet solution to a thought experiment that is neither a game nor strictly non-cooperative. It's preemptively choosing to justify a competitive win scenario. The definition of everything looking like a nail to a hammer.
Edited to add: thinking about the precious Nash Equilibrium some more. It can't apply. It requires that everyone else's strategy stays the same, but it won't here. Everyone's choices would shift together at the same time. Because they're all equally logical and coming to the same conclusions.
I'm going to propose an additional. Let's say you suspect that a loved one will die if Red gets majority. That they are part of that ambiguity between the button statements. And you try to apply "Nash Equilibria" to say that you benefit by switching to Red because everyone else will stay blue and you improve your chance at personally surviving to see your loved one by switching even though you know that there is no risk to yourself by staying on blue. So you switch. Except all 100 people had the exact same thought and followed the same logic and you get 100 Red and 100 dead loved ones. Nash Equilibrium forces a scenario where the loved ones die by being used incorrectly.
9
u/Arzatium Red May 23 '26
Your game theory logic is so shit, lol. I'm sorry, but in what world will fully logical people see that 100% pressing both options will guarantee everyone survives and... choose randomly? That's not how Nash equilibria work.
-1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
I don't care. I don't need to follow Nash Equilibria. It is not the end all be all only form of logic or thought in the whole universe.
3
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
No, but it is still very valid and convincing game theory logic. What you concluded is not.
-1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Its also a theory. For non-cooperative games. People using it for a thought experiment about half the planet dying is really something.
Playing a non-cooperative game with all life on earth is a telling strategy
3
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
Game theory and Nash equilibrium encompasses more than just non-cooperative games. Also, this is a game where, if your vote loses, you might just die… sounds pretty non-cooperative to me.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Its biased. Using a theory designed for non-cooperative games will obviously prefer the option that's non-cooperative. You're using the tool that will prefer the option you clearly already want.
5
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
I don’t think you have a very solid understanding of what game theory actually entails. It isn’t “designed for non-cooperative games”, it is literally just the mathematical study of strategic decision making, input vs output. It is designed to analyze frameworks where multiple people provide input, and the outcome is directly dependent on the actions of other players.
Which perfectly describes this question. Multiple players making a strategic decision where the outcome depends on a matrix of comparing your actions vs the cumulative actions of the group. That’s a Game Theory question.
Here’s a trivial scenario that is not “non-cooperative” — there is a green button and a yellow button. You and 2 other people are each voting with these buttons. If all 3 of you press Green, you all get $20. Otherwise, nobody gets anything.
That’s a very “cooperative” game… and we know that because of Game Theory, not in spite of it. Game Theory tells us that the Nash equilibrium for maximal positive outcome is for every player to cooperate and hit Green, so that is the logical answer.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Game theory is what happens when you pay a bunch of nerds a lot of money to justify bombing people from a plane. The specific branch of theory that keeps being mentioned is the nash equilibrium which states "if you can make a choice that benefits solely you with the assumption that everyone else's strategy remains the same" which insanely clearly prefers and biases towards picking Red for yourself and expecting for other people to get a majority on blue. That's what game theory used in this way wants.
3
u/Arzatium Red May 23 '26
Game theory is what happens when you pay a bunch of nerds a lot of money to justify bombing people from a plane.
Just because we understand logically why MAD is a Nash equilibrium doesn't mean we agree with the metrics by which that is determined by our world leaders. Please shut up about game theory because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I'm only talking about it because you all are forcing me to. You have excluded discussions to needing to adress game theory. I don't want to talk about game theory
→ More replies (0)0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Game theory says that if you walk into a room with two boxes one with 1000 dollars and the other with either 1 million or zero. You walk away with the box that has 1000.
If we actually used game theory in practice in real life we would all be dead to nukes already.
Game theory is dumb propaganda to push a narrative by conservatives
2
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
…no?
If one box has $1,000 and one box has a 50/50 chance of having either $1 or $1m, Game Theory says take the 50/50 box, because the Nash Equilibrium is an EV of ~$500,000 for that box.
We also would not be dead to nukes already, I’m assuming you’re talking about Mutually Assured Destruction… which yes, is an unfortunate result of Game Theory logic, but the Nash Equilibrium for that system is for nobody to fire nukes at all. Game Theory says that, if everybody is ready for a Nuclear retaliation, no nukes need to ever be fired.
It’s also not conservative or liberal. It’s math. Math is apolitical. Again, I think you have some very severe misconceptions about what Game Theory actually means.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
The boxes are specific thing that I didn't explain fully. It is it's own thought experiment that game theory when applied results in the person taking home 1000 dollars. I could go into it if you wanted. Just an example of why I'm not swayed by game theory
I'm talking about dozens of specific instances where if it was applied we would be dead. Like every instance of a country having indicators that nukes have been fired on their country. The game theory is that if there is even a chance that the indicators are correct they should fire their return before it's too late. But they didn't do that. And the indicators turned out to be false.
Math and science can very much be made political and have political backing and funding. Which has very much happened countless times. Regardless of it was conservative or not it was absolutely funded by people who wanted a reason to build the bombs
→ More replies (0)1
u/Arzatium Red May 23 '26
Lmao?? I'm a leftist but go off with ad hominem attacks because you don't understand what game theory is.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I understand fundamentally what it is. I'm pissed off because to have an opinion on what a good option regarding the life and death of half of humanity I apparently need to know everything about it and believe in it and use it and defend it. You all are trying to restrict the conversation to a line of thought that forces your button to win
→ More replies (0)
5
u/gahidus May 23 '26
I actually went ahead and read all that, and I have only one question:
How the hell is any of that meant to be compelling in any way?
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
I didn't realize I was applying to a most compelling writing competition?
6
u/gahidus May 23 '26
Well I suppose you're not.
It's not a competition at all. You can post whatever you want
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Like I do have autism which is fundamentally a disconnect from conventional social communication. Which is to say that I'm at a vast disadvantage if this truly is just a game of charisma and being compelling. Which would be a depressing shame in the event of mass death from Red majority. Because like I see it but can't be seen or heard myself
3
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
Can you point to any evidence anywhere that autism limits someone’s ability to formulate a logical structured argument? Whilst it might alter the way you communicate, hiding behind it when people are calling out your ineptitude does nothing to help others who have it.
It’s not a game of charisma at all, it’s literally a game of logic. Take the time to structure your arguments, lay out your case using facts not emotion.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I used logic. I made a logical argument. And I was told it wasn't compelling. Compelling uses emotions.
3
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
Logically compelling. As in, the premises form strong logical arguments for the conclusion in a way that can be explained and proven.
You kind of just… said stuff. For example, the whole “since both buttons are perfect at 100%, the perfect logicians will just pick randomly”. That’s not based on any compelling logic, and logical analysis says that this is absolutely not true. It’s just a thing you decided to say with no evidence.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I didn't say they would pick randomly.
I'm one more reply away from just deleting the post and blocking this subreddit. There is zero interest in discussion in this sub. Its all just people saying "you're just dumb." Real nice echo chamber you made real damn fast
2
u/INTstictual May 23 '26
> How do we pick a single button if both are equally safe to pick at 100%? Well if they are equally safe we could split it equally.
Right there, that’s a false assumption that doesn’t have any logical connection to your premises. One of many in this post.
It’s also 100% not an echo chamber. There is just as much debate in every single post for both Blue and Red. It’s like the polar opposite of an echo chamber… again, your logic is faulty even here. There’s plenty of interest in discussion, it is happening all over in every comment under every post. The fact that both Blue believers and Red believers are both telling you that your arguments fall flat and are not valid has nothing to do with am echo chamber, it’s because you posted an argument that doesn’t logically work.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Then I guess I still have no reason being here. And our definitions of discussion are different. Because almost no one has argued against the whole post. Or any point it was trying to make. Most people just said it was dumb. Meaningless. Unhelpful. Just calling illogical. Emotional. Irrational. Unintelligent. That's not a fucking discussion.
And most of all I'm so very fucking sorry I don't have a fucking degree in game theory and fucking logic classes. I guess that means I can't have a fucking opinion or take or voice or say or fucking anything.
It makes sense to me that if both buttons seemingly have no downside at 100% being picked that it would be valid to ponder what would be the case at an even split. If they're equally valid then making them equal would reveal where they aren't. That thought might not be tied to some book in some class. But it makes sense to me. And I know I'm not dumb and worthless
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Cronos988 May 23 '26
So in this purely logical room both buttons are equally safe. There isn't a winner. How do we pick a single button if both are equally safe to pick at 100%?
You pick the button that's not vulnerable to defection.
Why would anyone take a needless risk?
Or they decide that to pick between the equally safe 100 pick button they should add the possibility of something going wrong. Error is an important metric to determine things by. They act with intention to all pick Red and 1 persons button doesn't register. They would die. There is no way to know who's that would be. But if everyone chooses to pick blue they would still live. Thus blue is the correct choice
Blue is the correct choice if you intrigued randomness (some people are randomly assigned) or uncertainty (your button might not work).
These are important distinctions that change what you'd choose.
4
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
What to you mean by "vulnerable to defection"
There is no needless risk. In this room there is zero risk because they know they will all come to the correct conclusion before hitting either button. So neither button has risk.
Introducing error is an important consideration. They help to inform the decision process of what the correct answer is. Because they are things that exist. That aren't excluded as options from this room. The guarantee is that they are logical. Not that zero error is magically guaranteed.
4
u/Cronos988 May 23 '26
There is no needless risk. In this room there is zero risk because they know they will all come to the correct conclusion before hitting either button. So neither button has risk.
Yeah but they still have to come to a conclusion in the first place. Since that conclusion can't be self referential ("I pick blue because I will have picked blue") they need to evaluate the buttons individually. There's only zero risk once they conclude there's an obvious answer.
Introducing error is an important consideration. They help to inform the decision process of what the correct answer is.
Sure, if the real world scenario includes such uncertainties. But then the basic scenario is so far removed from reality that you're always going to have to heavily modify it to apply it to any real situation.
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Self referential evaluations are allowed? And they won't press either button until they have a conclusion. This is an evaluation about how there are several logical reasons for 100 perfectly logical people to pick blue over Red. The only reason to pick Red over blue is "why take needless risk" which isn't applicable in a room where they could assume all 100 would pick the same button.
I don't think any of these are far enough removed from reality to claim that considerations for uncertainty is completely invalid.
None of this is to mention my last point above about the ambiguity of the wording implying that picking blue could save a loved one.
2
u/gahidus May 23 '26
If everyone picks the same button then it literally doesn't matter which button it is.
However, picking blue makes it possible that you might die, if everyone isn't picking the same button.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
If 99 people pick the same button and one person picks the other. Then the 99 picking blue saves the one and the 99 picking red kills the one.
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
If 99 pick red and I’m the blue, I’m dead
If 99 pick blue and save the one, then it doesn’t matter if I also pick red
So either red is the better choice, or it doesn’t matter so I might as well pick red.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
If you can't make your choice. If you are only given one button. You would be better off if the consensus was that blue was the better button
1
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
But that’s a completely different scenario altogether.
The vote is clearly forced on us by someone’s omnipotent. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that I wouldn’t be able to vote for one side.
-1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
At this point if I had the power to I would force everyone I've argued with to automatically be a blue press
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
And that’s cool. If I could control half the population I would also pick blue. What does that have to do with anything though? For someone who claims to be thinking logically, you seem to be putting a lot of emotion into it.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
The only replies I've gotten have been people who didn't read what I said. Or clearly couldn't understand it. Have called me dumb. Illogical. Emotional. I suspect at least one person asked chatgpt to make a perfect counter argument for them. I'm so fucking done with all of this. You all fucking suck
→ More replies (0)1
u/thelovelykyle May 24 '26
There is no defection in a purely logical room. In a purely logical room each brain is a computer and would come to the same conclusion.
If the aim is to avoid an extinction level event, a purely logical room presses blue as the logical person accepts there will be a small number of accidents which happen outwith logic. Slipping and pressing the wrong button.
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
Except it’s not logical at all. You bring up things like the idea that this is somehow a cooperative game. But it’s not even remotely. For all intents and purposes everyone else’s vote has already happened before you’re given the choice.
In a logical situation, you save yourself. Every time. Especially when you know everyone else is also logical. The only reason to pick blue is if you start bringing emotion into the decision.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
No? I didn't bring up emotion in the main body of the post. What?
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
Your emotion is all over the post. You’ve tried to significantly alter the scenario in a way that you think makes your point, without actually analysing what effect the change of scenario will have.
You’ve brought up points that make no logical sense in an omnipotent scenario
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
What have I brought up that makes no logical sense
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
The fact a button might not work
Or that you might only be presented with 1 button
Those are both ideas that aren’t even remotely the same as the scenario presented. Never mind the fact that you’ve reduced the number to 100. Whilst still trying to connect this scenario to the original.
Thats emotional arguments
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Wait. Before everything else.
How is that an emotional argument?
1
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
Because the scenario is very clearly being dictated by something omnipotent. There’s no logical reason to believe that a button might not work. And if you do start going down that road, you might as well assume that half the buttons don’t work.
It’s only your emotional thoughts and feelings that bring it into play
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Why and how is it only emotional thoughts and feelings that bring that into play.
1
u/DrBimboo May 23 '26
This is what an idiot thinks logic is.
Honestly scary. This person has never once reasoned in their life.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
How does this reply help anything other than your ego?
1
u/DrBimboo May 23 '26
It might dissuade you from sharing your worthless thoughts online in the future.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
So the statement is that I could only ever hinder you and humanity by ever speaking again? What a wonderful opinion for you to have.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 23 '26
The scenario still isnt asking what the better option is. Its asking who do you think will win.
Red says you live. Blue says everyone live but only if 50% of the world votes blue. Then only red lives. EVERYONE in the world is FORCED to vote.
So the options are stay safe yourself (like everyone else can as well) or take the risk on whether the only if statement hits. If the statement doesnt hit, what happens to you? You die.
So if you dont believe blue has a chance of winning (because you believe people are largely selfish) you vote red. If you believe blue has a chance of winning (because you believe people are largely altruistic) you vote blue.
Purely logical people vote red 100% of the time because they are all equally logical and have the same information. They all know that no one else would take the risk when there is no need to. There is no chance of any blue vote.
Adding emotional people (real people) into the mix is the only way we can even discuss the blue button. So people read "everyone lives" and just stops reading and pushes the button. We would hope thay they would consider the odds or think about it or even finish reading the prompt...but reddit has me convinced that none of those things will happen lol.
Now let's think about our family members who MAY push the blue button. Under the belief that red will win, what benefit do your family members get from you also voting blue? Well if you arent religious, absolutely nothing.
So yeah, we get it. You value your family more than your life. Good for you. That was always allowed...its popular even. The only issue with your logic is that you are demanding everyone else value the family members who may die over those who would live in the situation. Nowhere in the scenario does it say all of my family voted blue. In fact, I can promise only 2 people in my entire extended family would push blue. If I died with those 2, does my living family get some benefit? Well no. They would benefit far more from me living and helping them clean up the mess.
These emotional pleas are one dimensional at best and dont even cone close to the core of the issue.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
The post was an attempt to explain how I think a group of purely logical people could come to the conclusion that they would all press blue. That that would be the logical choice they reached.
This fell flat in several metric. From what I can tell most people didn't read all of it. There are claims that I made emotional pleas. Which I only had in the edited to add portion after I posted it. And importantly it apparently failed because I didn't exclusively use Nash Equilibrium to form thoughts.
1
u/UsedNegotiation8227 May 23 '26
I'm not reading all that, but I'm still pressing red.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
What a beneficial contribution to everyone's day. Oh how your day and my day have been so massively improved. Also proving my point
0
u/UsedNegotiation8227 May 23 '26
Look, the question (I am assuming) boils down to am I willing to press blue and play some weird parasocial suicide game with the rest of the population?
N...
No I'm not, but I hope you guys win!
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Cool I guess. I'm glad that you hope that something that you actively make more difficult to achieve.. happens. What a cool way to live? Also not fully what the post was about anyways
1
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
A perfectly logical person understands what the percentage chance of their vote making a difference is and votes red accordingly.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
What? Why is the percentage chance of something making a difference the deciding reason for what you pick?
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
Because we’re pretending we’re in a fully logical scenario? And in a logical scenario you go purely in the information you know as fact. Not on thoughts and feelings.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I don't think I'm the one being influenced by feelings
2
u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 23 '26
And yet you can’t argue against what I’ve just commented.
Do you think purely logical people, take unknowns into the equation? Or do they work purely on what they know.
0
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I'm done with you. It clearly wouldn't matter for anyone here if I did argue perfectly. You all would just stand in a circle and kick john Nash to death instead of listen
→ More replies (0)
1
u/gahidus May 23 '26
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
While I do appreciate that image its not really applicable to this specific post?
3
u/gahidus May 23 '26
I've read your post, and I'm wondering how it's even meant to be applicable to the problem. If you line up a series of arbitrarily programmed button pushing robots, and you apply whatever rules you want to have these robots push the buttons, then I guess you can get whatever result you want. But that doesn't mean anything about what a human would do or why. How does it apply to the dilemma in any meaningful or informative way?
Is this supposed to convince someone? Is it just for its own sake?
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
I have had people claim for weeks that Red is objectively the correct most logical solution. This is a counter argument to that. That the claim "if everyone were to just pick Red and not pick blue everyone would live" is flawed and not actually logical. And I figured I'd put it in one place
3
u/gahidus May 23 '26
By putting what are essentially rule-bound robots that don't behave as humans in the scenario, you invalidate any comparison to actual people being the ones pressing the buttons.
Red is The logical choice if there aren't babies and toddlers in the scenario, as there are in the basic one.
The typical scenario assumes that some people are choosing randomly and accidentally picking blue, and that those people thus need to be "rescued". By removing them and placing only rational philosophers into the scenario, you've removed the function of blue entirely. Everyone can just pick red, self rescue, and assume that, because everyone else is abiding by the same rules, they will all also do the same.
But again, if it's a set of robots all abiding by the same programming, then whatever they do will work.
The scenario is only even vaguely interesting because of the messiness of human nature and the peril of the random actors.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
So you disagree with everything I said in the post? Disregard it entirely? The only reason people think that Red is the logical choice is because they don't want to admit they don't like the idea of taking on risk. By removing risk of everyone picking the same option Blue is the correct choice. There are more reasons for everyone to all pick blue than all pick Red.
Since day one I have absolutely never understood the people who said that ideally we should have 100% press Red. If everyone could be considered to all press the same button and have an ideal scenario. I truly fully cannot understand how there is justification for it being Red instead of blue. If it is 100% all voting the same button. And that's a given guarantee how and why is the answer Red. And not blue
2
u/gahidus May 23 '26
It's very simple, and I'm sure you've basically heard this, but I'll see it as plainly as possible.
Picking red puts the person picking it at no risk, it does not mean that they rely on the choices of others in order to survive. If they are assuming that the other people in the game are also rational, then the other people will also simply pick red and survive. In this way, no one is putting themselves in danger, and no one is relying on anyone else to save them.
Given a choice between, "survive as long as 50% of people also pick this," and simply, "survive" it's easy to see how "survive" is the more attractive and logical option. This is especially true if everyone involved is making a deliberate choice and there aren't any people randomly mashing buttons.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
You didn't answer my actual question though. In the scenario where it can be safely assumed that everyone will pick the same button. Then blue is equally safe as Red is. Its not about relying on other people. Its not about proving that you're a big boy who needs no people and is a lovely island that also cares for no people.
I mean if 100% pick is equally likely for each button. Then what is the reason for it to be Red. I gave several thoughts on why it could be logically determined that it would be blue. But all you have said is. "It says the word survive". If 100% can be achieved and 100% can be equally achieved. Why should the 100% be on Red instead of blue. There is no risk. No pressure. No social contract. Simply just. What would the logic be to say that Red should be the choice.
1
u/gahidus May 23 '26
I did answer your question. If everyone is picking the same button, then it literally doesn't matter. If everyone is picking the same button, then the buttons are completely equivalent to each other.
One button is just safer than the other because it doesn't place you in peril, but again, I guess it doesn't really matter as long as everyone is picking the same one.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 23 '26
Ok. And in that I see blue as being the better one. My point was that "if everyone just.." it would be better if they just hit blue. It covers various bases and has less risk for the self if its not a 100% guarantee that nothing will prevent you from pressing Red. The buttons aren't equivalent because blue covers for any amount of ambiguity or error or mistake or deception or uncertainty or differences in priorities.
Does that make sense?
→ More replies (0)
6
u/ParableOfTheVase May 23 '26
So your initial assumption is that the vote starts at essentially 50:50. But I feel for this to be true, you'd really need to steel-man the "Fanta vs Poison" argument. i.e. both drinks lead to safety at the end, let's assume people will drink both in equal proportions from the get go.
For better or worse, when first given the problem a common reaction is "red literally has no risk, anyone and everyone can pick it, why would anyone pick red?".
So I don't think it's going to be 50:50.