 The problem is called a "paradox" because two analyses that both sound intuitively logical give conflicting answers to the question of what choice maximizes the player's payout.David Wolpert and Gregory Benford point out that paradoxes arise when not all relevant details of a problem are specified, and there is more than one "intuitively obvious" way to fill in those missing details.They suggest that in the case of Newcomb's paradox, the conflict over which of the two strategies is "obviously correct" reflects the fact that filling in the details in Newcomb's problem can result in two different noncooperative games, and each of the strategies is reasonable for one game but not the other.