Again, it is not my theory.

And again, I said I generated the entire spectrum of bids using ranges and multiple worksheets.

Furthermore, I stated that there is a range of bets for every situation that would allow one person to finish ahead, given the 3 stipulations of:

1. non-discovery of the strategy
2. non-cooperation of others
3. non-suicidal bets

This is not the same as saying there is always a way to win. In fact, if you look at item #3, it is clear there is a way to disrupt this strategy every game. If just one player in each remaining round does something cavalier, it completely negates any gains that can be made.

This is not a "cop-out" as so many of you have said, it is something that was identified from my first post.

This is not "my idea", this is based on a paper that has been public for decades.

Anybody can do the same thing as I did.

As for Fencer's "human factor" remark: Nash's paper was PRECISELY about the human factor! You should really read it before you make such remarks that are so easy to dispute!