> I think “strongest” refers to the Gates/Buffet bet at the beginning of the article. There is no die you can pick that will give you an advantage over someone who picks second.

But there is a die you can pick that is uniformly better than any alternative. That die is C. If your opponent is playing correctly, C will give you the optimal outcome. And if your opponent isn't playing correctly, C will also give you the optimal outcome. This is not true of the other two dice.

If you pick C, and your opponent picks B, you lose 58% of the time. What is optimal about that?

> If Gates had chosen first, then whichever die he chose, Buffett would have been able to find another die that could beat it (that is, one with more than a 50% chance of winning).

It seems like you're thinking about this outside of the relevant context, which is a math problem, loosely inspired by real life games.

Eagerly awaiting a retort to this point:)

> If you pick C, and your opponent picks B, you lose 58% of the time. What is optimal about that?

What's optimal about that is that it's the best outcome you can theoretically achieve. That's what "optimal" means.

Sorry, I think you're just missing the point of the article.

There is an optimal choice of die, yes. But you still lose more often than you win if you pick first.

The counterintuitive part is that the first player cannot win more often than they lose.

Perhaps better framed as “there is no optimal die until after the first player picks”.