  We study random-turn resource-allocation games. In the Trail of Lost Pennies,
a counter moves on $\mathbb{Z}$. At each turn, Maxine stakes $a \in [0,\infty)$
and Mina $b \in [0,\infty)$. The counter $X$ then moves adjacently, to the
right with probability $\tfrac{a}{a+b}$. If $X_i \to -\infty$ in this
infinte-turn game, Mina receives one unit, and Maxine zero; if $X_i \to
\infty$, then these receipts are zero and $x$. Thus the net receipt to a given
player is $-A+B$, where $A$ is the sum of her stakes, and $B$ is her terminal
receipt. The game was inspired by unbiased tug-of-war in~[PSSW] from 2009 but
in fact closely resembles the original version of tug-of-war, introduced
[HarrisVickers87] in the economics literature in 1987. We show that the game
has surprising features. For a natural class of strategies, Nash equilibria
exist precisely when $x$ lies in $[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$, for a certain
$\lambda \in (0,1)$. We indicate that $\lambda$ is remarkably close to one,
proving that $\lambda \leq 0.999904$ and presenting clear numerical evidence
that $\lambda \geq 1 - 10^{-4}$. For each $x \in [\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$, we
find countably many Nash equilibria. Each is roughly characterized by an
integral {\em battlefield} index: when the counter is nearby, both players
stake intensely, with rapid but asymmetric decay in stakes as it moves away.
Our results advance premises [HarrisVickers87,Konrad12] for fund management and
the incentive-outcome relation that plausibly hold for many player-funded
stake-governed games. Alongside a companion treatment [HP22] of games with
allocated budgets, we thus offer a detailed mathematical treatment of an
illustrative class of tug-of-war games. We also review the separate
developments of tug-of-war in economics and mathematics in the hope that
mathematicians direct further attention to tug-of-war in its original
resource-allocation guise.
