Winner takes all contests seem to be zero sum games to me, in a certain sense. The pie is a fixed size, and one guy gets all of it. I think I'd rather sink my time into business or open source stuff.
Saying a winner-takes-all contest is "zero sum" in any sense is utterly nonsensical, as it's clearly not zero sum since one group wins $1,000,000.
Also, "one guy" doesn't necessarily get all of it, as team co-operation is implicitly encouraged as it increases the chances of winning. Additionally, the game is strictly skill-based, so the more skilled you are the more likely you are to win, which may encourage you to work in the contest. And that's excluding all the additional externalities involved.
Ok, so call it "fixed sum" or whatever else is technically correct - that's the point I'm trying to make. If one guy wins, another guy necessarily loses. That's not true in plenty of other things.
> the more skilled you are the more likely you are to win
Yes, but the second and third guys are quite skilled too, and win nothing (and yes, we are excluding the externalities since we're talking about the general case, not this specific one).
I wrote contest, not knowledge. The knowledge is external to the contest. Some contests, like this one, have lots of external benefits to the top guys, but "winner takes all contest" in the abstract sense seems to me to be a zero sum game, so I stand by what I said: it's generally better to sink your time into something where the "external stuff" is actually the main benefit.
The term "zero sum" does not really make sense here. Netflix obviously thinks they're getting more than what they're spending on the contest and the winning team obviously thinks they're receiving more than what they've invested. So between those two parties, there is a net gain as is the case in most voluntary transactions.
At best, what you're saying is that other competitors have wasted their time, but I don't think that's true either.
For the third time: I am talking about the abstract case, not 'here', and I am talking about the point of view of the competitors, not the entity running the contest.
> At best, what you're saying is that other competitors have wasted their time, but I don't think that's true either.
They haven't won anything, and unless there are externalities, they have wasted their time. How can they not have? They received nothing.
So, what I said is true: the contest is a "zero" or "fixed" sum game, and the other competitors gain only through externalities. You can downmod that all you like, but this more or less concurs with the definition of "zero sum game" in wikipedia.
The reason you are having to dogmatically repeat your idiosyncratic use of the term "zero sum" is that you are using it in such a narrow sense that it adds nothing to what you are saying. A typical example of a zero sum game is a futures contract which is contrasted with a non-zero sum game like stock investing.
If you exclude externalities like all parties in a transaction being happier with the outcome or placing present value on some possible future outcome, then there is no net positive sum game.
My view is that a lot of contest type things are not a good deal for the participants, and that it's a good idea to recognize that, going in. If there are external benefits, well, then it may be worth it. Otherwise, you're probably better off investing your time in something that's positive sum, such as, say, a startup. I would have thought that people here would get that.
Sure, if you're only weighing the cash prize. Contests like this often involve competitors spending more than the prize, certainly in total among all entrants, but sometimes even by the single winner.
But it's clear there are many other motivations at play: the excitement of the competition, the chance to learn based on a real-world problem and dataset, the fame available even to those who reach goals other than final victory. And many of the results can be published as papers or open-source software, as well.
