The Washington Post

How to win rock-paper-scissors (almost) every time

(Gordon Cranford/Flickr)

Rock-paper-scissors is a schoolyard game/universal bar-tab-settler that theoretically relies on chance. After all, each person in the game plays one of three hands at random each time. Right?

Wrong! Scientists at China’s Zhejiang University just released the results of the first large-scale study of the game — and they found that player behavior typically follows a predictable pattern. It goes something like this:

People start by picking each variable (rock, paper or scissors) about one-third of the time. You can’t really game this stage. BUT after the first round:

  • If a player wins, he will usually stick with the same play.
  • If a player loses, he will usually switch actions in “a clockwise direction”: rock changes to paper, paper to scissors, scissors to rock.

This is simple, but a little hard to envision — so let’s try an example. Say I am playing three rounds of rock-paper-scissors with my cubemate Emily.

Round 1: Emily plays paper, I play rock. She wins.
Round 2: Emily plays paper, I switch to paper. We draw.
Round 3: Emily plays scissors, I switch to scissors. Another draw! I lose.

But if I had kept the probabilities from this Zhejiang University study in mind, I could have changed my gameplay like so:

Round 1: Emily plays paper, I play rock. She wins.
Round 2: Emily plays paper, I switch to scissors. I win.
Round 3: Emily switches to scissors, I switch to rock. I win again!

You can thank game theory for your improved rock-paper-scissors game. Researchers previously believed the game operated according to a game theory tenet called “the Nash equilibrium” — basically, the idea that people will chose each of the three options equally over time. But studied on a larger scale, it appears play follows a cyclical pattern — which means sneaky players can use “conditional response,” a reaction to a specific stimulus, in order to optimize their records.

That has fascinating implications not only for your next bet, but for human psychology.

“Whether conditional response is a basic decision-making mechanism of the human brain or just a consequence of more fundamental neural mechanisms is a challenging question for future studies,” the Zhejiang researchers conclude.

Almost as challenging as losing a rock-paper-scissors game now … amirite?

Caitlin Dewey is The Post’s digital culture critic. Follow her on Twitter @caitlindewey or subscribe to her daily newsletter on all things Internet. (



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
This isn't your daddy's gun club
A look inside the world of Candomblé
It's in the details: Five ways to enhance your kitchen makeover
Play Videos
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
The rise and fall of baseball cards
Is fencing the answer to brain health?
Play Videos
John Lewis, 'Marv the Barb' and the politics of barber shops
How to prevent 'e-barrassment'
The art of tortilla-making
Play Videos
Circus nuns: These sisters are no act
How hackers can control your car from miles away
How the new credit card chip makes purchases more secure
Next Story
Paul Farhi · April 30, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.