Rules of Prisoner's Dilemma are simple:

You face an opponent. You have two choices: Defect, or Cooperate. If you defect and your opponent defects, neither player gets a point. If you cooperate and your opponent defects, you lose a point and your opponent gains 5. If you both cooperate, you both get 3 points.

This game is often played out in nature. The obvious choice for one person would be to defect, because if your opponent cooperates and you defect, the payoff is bigger for you, while if your opponent defects and you defect, the payoff is still bigger for you. But what happens when you iterate this game 200 times? What I plan to do is create 20 strategies for playing this game, pit them up against each other, and tally up their points from each individual playing out against each individual 200 times. I have a few theories on what strategies might be best. I have 16 thus far, I need 4 more, although a lot of my strategies are fairly simple, so if you guys give me better ones I'll replace the simple ones with those. I'm going to be running this simulation on a computer.

Each "personality" must predetermine what it does based on it's opponents previous moves. It can store as many previous moves as it likes in its memory, but that can be the only input. Alternatively, it does not need to use its opponents moves at all if it does not want to.

Examples of some of my personalities in case you need examples:

Tit for Tat: Cooperates on the first turn, then mimics what it's opponent did on the previous turn.

Grudger: Cooperate each time until it's opponent defects. Then defect each time.

Random: Randomly pick the decision.