logistics of playing Monopoly for real money

[college kid]

Not sure if this is the right post, but what the heck. Friends had an idea of playing Monopoly for real money--dividing the value of everything by a hundred of course! The only problem we have with the logistics is the bank. Aside from not doing any stupid house rules, the only idea we have so far on how to make this a feasable idea is to not have any money go out of the bank for the first round. By the second round, with people buying properties and such, there should be enough to cover. Anybody have any other ideas or suggestions???

And no BS about how this is stupid gambling. There is skill to Monopoly and it is evident that some of the people who play just have no idea about the value of certain things by the trades they make and properties they buy or auction. I plan on winning this game.

[chrisdhal]

Search the archives for this. IIRC there was some discussion about this a few months ago.

[Michael Davis]

Since only one person wins the game, it doesn't make any sense to do this. Just agree upon a set fee, use the play money, and winner takes all. The end result is the same either way but using the play money is less messy.

-Michael

[college kid]

Yeah, that's what we are most likely going to do. It just doesn't matter if we actually use real money, though it would be fun. We'll just do it tourney style and have payouts for first and maybe second.

[twistedbeats]

also, you shouldn't award 200$ for passing go ever. it's a dumb rule and makes the game go too long.

[PSW]

"also, you shouldn't award 200$ for passing go ever. it's a dumb rule and makes the game go too long. "

That is crazy. The game would not be playable without some influx of money. You could never build houses. Howver, you must not use free parking or award more money for landing on go. That is for sure.

[pshreck]

If Monopoly were played for real money, it would be the ultimate cheaters/colluding game.

While some people think there is a lot of skill in Monopoly, anybody that took time to really learn the game would be within a very close range of all other good players. So many people tend to think they are good because they dominate friends and family.... aka people who are just screwing around (much more than any bad poker players ever do).

Not to get into deep game theory.... but the FIRST players to deal would have immediate advantage over the third/fourth/nth other players. Giving up quick Monopolies to eachother, while always 1 side usually getting screwed, will still greatly benefit those 2 players as they have a huge edge over the others, who are now close to 'dead money'.

When you play competitive games at home, the goal is to win and not give another player a better chance than yourself to do so, so monopolies are held on to for long times as neither side wants to get screwed by the deal. This would not be the case in cash games over the long term, and the first two players to give eachother monopolies would have an infinite edge over everyone else.... hence turning the game into a boring luck game of who is able to get properties quickest.

No one thinks 'long term' when competing in Monopoly now, and people rarely make bad deals to get long term edges.

Playing for real money in Monopoly simply would not work.

[NegativeZero]

One way to elimintate collusion would be to impose a rule that all transactions go up for auction, that can be bid upon by all parties. This way, no under-the-table trades can be made (e.g. Park Place for Short Line).

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
One way to elimintate collusion would be to impose a rule that all transactions go up for auction, that can be bid upon by all parties. This way, no under-the-table trades can be made (e.g. Park Place for Short Line).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, you could completely change the whole game to prevent collusion... but then it wouldn't be Monopoly.

[Voltron87]

Heads up monopoly?

[omahahahaha]

R...............I.............S.................K. ......

I used to play monopoly for money with my buddies awhile back but we quickly learned that RISK was the game to play for cash. Everybody puts up a set amount and either play winner take all or pay out three places. Much better game than monopoly to play for money.

[siriusradio]

Having live auctions wouldnt do it either.. one colluder puts up Baltic,... the other colluder bids all the money he has for it. Now his buddy is stacked and in position to take first in the winner takes all game.

[college kid]

Will have to try that too.

[twistedbeats]

[ QUOTE ]
That is crazy. The game would not be playable without some influx of money. You could never build houses. Howver, you must not use free parking or award more money for landing on go. That is for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

i forgot about this thread. this is flat out wrong.

with a constant influx of money, everyone buys every property they land on no matter what. trades usually happen exclusivly for two people to complete monopolies. so the first person to sh*t into a monopoly wins. also, i've traded "all my money for st charles" or whatever because who cares, i'll get 200 when i cross go anyway.

without the 200 for go, players cannot buy all willy nilly, and trades become much more important. also a rule that apparently few people notice comes into play much more, the "unimproved monopolies collect double rent" rule.

i'm not gonna lie, the game goes a lot slower. but if i was gonna play for cash, this is how i'd do it.