This is somewhat related to my earlier question What is the probability that player A rolls a larger number if player B is allowed to re-roll (20-sided die)? and somewhat related to 30 sided die and 20 sided die.
I made up this question as a follow-up to the previous one. Let's consider a game where player $A$ and $B$ tosses a 20-sided die. Player $B$ is allowed to re-toss and plays optimally. Player $B$ can observe his first toss before deciding whether to re-toss again, but he is not allowed to observe player $A$'s toss before deciding whether to re-toss. Player $A$'s toss is compared to player $B$'s LAST toss (we're NOT taking the maximum of 2 tosses by player $B$).
How does $B$ decide the threshhold at which he should re-toss for each of the following:
(1) If player $A$ tosses a strictly larger number, then player $B$ pays \$1 to player $A$. Otherwise, player $A$ pays player $B$ \$1.
(2) If player $A$ tosses a strictly larger number, then player $B$ pays \$X to player $A$, where $X$ is the value player $B$ tossed. Otherwise, player $A$ pays player $B$ \$Y, where $Y$ is the value player $B$ tossed.
For both parts, assume player $B$ plays optimally and that he wants to maximize his profit, i.e., minimize player A's profit.
For part (1), the problem of deciding whether to re-toss or not is equivalent to minimizing the probability of $A$ winning, and we find that player $B$ will re-toss if the first toss is $\leq 10$ (this was proven in my previous post, and I confirmed it via monte carlo).
At first, I thought the threshhold at which player $B$ decides to re-toss is the same for both. But it seems to not be, but it is not intuitive to me why this is not the case. I did not solve part (2) analytically yet, but Monte Carlo is telling me that $\leq 11$ is the threshhold at which player $B$ should re-toss.
I may solve this analytically tomorrow (I think perhaps the approach would be to use conditional expectation to solve this rather than only using probabilities as in part (1)), but before I do that, I was wondering if someone can give me an intuitive explanation of why (2) isn't equivalent to minimizing the probability of $A$ winning or maximizing the probability of $B$ winning?