3: Alex and Aaron are political rivals, and Aaron has challenged Alex to a duel. Alex must choose whether to accept the challenge or decline, and Aaron must choose whether to shoot Alex or miss (even if he accepts, Alex's religious convictions won't allow him to shoot Aaron). If Alex declines, he lives but Aaron gets the satisfaction of making Alex look like a coward. If Alex accepts and Aaron misses, both men get to move on with their lives but Alex gets the benefit of defending his honor. If Alex accepts and Aaron shoots, Alex will die but Aaron would have also killed his own political career. The payoffs are represented in the payoff matrix below: Aaron Shoot Miss Ассept 0,0 2,1 Alex Decline 1,2 1,2 (1) What are the pure-strategy Nash equilibria of this game? (2) Now or decline the challenge to a duel, and if Alex accepts Aaron then chooses suppose that the game is sequential. Alex first chooses whether to accept whether to shoot Alex or miss. In this version of the game, does one of the Nash equilibria seem more rational than the other(s)? Why is that? Explain your reasoning.

3: Alex and Aaron are political rivals, and Aaron has challenged Alex to a duel. Alex must choose whether to accept the challenge or decline, and Aaron must choose whether to shoot Alex or miss (even if he accepts, Alex's religious convictions won't allow him to shoot Aaron). If Alex declines, he lives but Aaron gets the satisfaction of making Alex look like a coward. If Alex accepts and Aaron misses, both men get to move on with their lives but Alex gets the benefit of defending his honor. If Alex accepts and Aaron shoots, Alex will die but Aaron would have also killed his own political career. The payoffs are represented in the payoff matrix below: Aaron Shoot Miss Ассept 0,0 2,1 Alex Decline 1,2 1,2 (1) What are the pure-strategy Nash equilibria of this game? (2) Now or decline the challenge to a duel, and if Alex accepts Aaron then chooses suppose that the game is sequential. Alex first chooses whether to accept whether to shoot Alex or miss. In this version of the game, does one of the Nash equilibria seem more rational than the other(s)? Why is that? Explain your reasoning.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

a) Write out the extensive form of a game between a farmer (playing in the first round) and nature (playing a mixed strategy in the second round). Assume that the farmer can either pay a cash rent of $1500 for land (English system) or 1/2 of crop production to the landlord (sharecropping). Assume the farmer is planting corn and will produce 2 tons of corn. Assume that nature has a 50% chance of playing a strategy in which the price of corn is $3500/ton and a 50% chance of playing a strategy in which the price of corn is $500/ton. The farmer keeps any money left after paying cash rent and sells any corn left after paying the landlord in sharecropping. b)What is the most that a risk neutral farmer would be willing to pay for an accurate prediction of the price of corn in problem 1 before choosing whether to pay cash rent or sharecrop?
8. Solving for dominant strategies and the Nash equilibrium Suppose Tim and Alyssa are playing a game in which both must simultaneously choose the action Left or Right. The payoff matrix that follows shows the payoff each person will earn as a function of both of their choices. For example, the lower-right cell shows that if Tim chooses Right and Alyssa chooses Right, Tim will receive a payoff of 3 and Alyssa will receive a payoff of 6. Tim Left Left 5, 6 Right 4, 2 Alyssa Right 5,5 3,6 The only dominant strategy in this game is for to choose The outcome reflecting the unique Nash equilibrium in this game is as follows: Tim chooses and Alyssa chooses
3. The following is an interpretation of the rivalry between the United States (USA) and the Soviet Ünion (USSR) during the cold war. Each side has the choice of two strategies: Aggressive and Restrained. The payoff table is given as follows: USSR Restrained Aggressiveness Restrained 4,3 1,4 USA Aggressiveness 3,1 2,2 a) Consider this game when the two countries move simultaneously. Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria. b) Next consider three alternative ways in which the game could be played with sequential moves: (i) The USA moves first and the USSR moves second. (i) the USSR moves first and the USA moves second. (i) The USSR moves first, and the USA moves second, but the USSR has a further move after the USA moves. For each case, draw the game tree and find the subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium. c) What are the key strategic issues (commitment, credibility and so on) for the two countries. (Note: Be concise. Your answer should not exceed 300 words].
3. Blackadder and Baldrick are rational, self-interested criminals imprisoned in separate cells in a dark medieval dungeon. They face the prisoner's dilemma displayed in the matrix. Assume that Blackadder is willing to pay $1,000 for each year by which he can reduce his sentence below 20 years. A corrupt jailer tells Blackadder that before he decides whether to confess or deny the crime, she can tell him Baldrick's decision. How much is this information worth to Blackadder? (LO2) Blackadder Confess Deny O for Baldrick Confess 5 years for each 20 years for Blackadder Baldrick 20 years for Baldrick Deny 1 year for each O for Blackadder
2. Consider the two-player strategic form game represented in the following payoff table: t 1 m b 7,2 1,2 3,7 2 M 2,4 3,4 1,6 R 1,3 7,1 4,2 Player 1 chooses between rows, S₁ = {t, m, b), and receives the first listed payoff in each cell. Player 2 chooses between columns, S₂ = {L, M, R), and receives the second listed payoff in each cell. a. Does either player have a strictly dominant strategy? Explain. b. Explaining your steps carefully, identify the set of rationalizable strategies in this game. c. Making sure to explain your solution method, solve for all pure strategy Nash equilibria in this game.
7
Problem 5 Two countries are currently facing the COVID threat when trading with each other. Such countries are currently considering three options: keeping the activities open, limiting the opening hours, or closing down. The following table shows the expected payoffs in billions of dollars. For example, if Country 1 will adopt “Limited opening" and Country 2 will keep the activities open, Country 1 will have a payoff of 4 billion dollars, while Country 2 will have a payoff of 8 billion dollars. Country 2 Оpen Limited opening Closed Оpen 5;5 8;4 10;0 Country 1 Limited opening 4;8 7;7 5;0 Closed 0;10 0;5 0;0 Question 5.1. In case of a simultaneous decision (simultaneous game), identify eventual equilibria, and strategies in this game for the two countries. Give a brief economic explanation of your results. Question 5.2. In case one of the two countries would choose first (sequential game), identify the two outcomes of the game, and eventual first/second mover advantages.
2. Consider the following two-player game with two players: Adam and Eve. Adam A1 A2 A3 A4 E1 6,3 5, 3 5, 0 2,0 E2 4,4 5, 4 3, 2 2, 3 Eve E3 4, 1 0,2 6, 1 3, 4 E4 3,0 5, 1 4,0 6₂ 1 a. Find the Iterated Elimination of Dominant Strategies Equilibrium for this game. Explain.
2. Consider the following "centipede game." The game starts with player 1 choosing be- tween terminate (T) and continue (C). If player 1 chooses C, the game proceeds with player 2 choosing between terminate (t) and continue (c). The two players choose be- tween terminate and continue in turn if the other player chooses continue until the terminal nodes with (player l's payoff, player 2's payoff) are reached as shown below. TTTT Player 1 Player 2 Player 1 Player 2 (3, 3) t (1, 1) (0, 3) (2, 2) (1, 4) (a) List all possible strategies of each player. (b) Transform the game tree into a normal-form matrix representation. (c) Find all pure-strategy Nash equilibria. (d) Find the unique pure-strategy subgame-perfect equilibrium.
the Consider a simultaneous-move integer game between two players: Marilyn and Noah. Each of player is required to announce a positive integer between 1 to 4. In other words, a player can announce 1, 2, 3, or 4. Two players announce their integers simultaneously. Notice that this game is different from the games we learned in class in that each player has four actions to take. The payoffs of the players in the game are specified as follows: (1) when the two announced integers are different, whoever reports the lower number pays $1 to the other player, so that the loser of the game has payoff -1 and the winner of the game has payoff 1; (2) when the two players announce the same integer, their payoffs are both O. What is Marilyn's maximin strategy? 01 02 03 O
Consider the following two player game. In each cell the first number refers to the payoff to Player 1 while the second number refers to the payoff to Player 2. Suppose the two players move simultaneously (at the same time). Which one of the following statements is CORRECT? Player #1 Player #2 Top Bottom Left 7.7 4.0 Right 0,4 4,4 O There are three equilibria in this game: two pure strategy equilibria at [Top, Left] and [Bottom, Right) and al third equilibrium in mixed strategies. In the mixed strategy equilibrium of this game. Player 1 should play Top with probability 2/5 and Bottom with probability 3/5; Player 2 should play Left with probability 2/5 and Right with probability 3/5. O There are three equilibria in this game; two pure strategy equilibria at (Top. Left) and (Bottom, Right) and a third equilibrium in mixed strategies. In the mixed strategy equilibrium of this game, both players should randomize over the strategies with probability and %. O There is a unique dominant…
4. Sonia the Terrible lands her ship and crew of scurvy-pirate raiders onto a foreign beach. Up on the headland is a village, led by Jen the Brave. At this point, Sonia has a choice: she can SLASH her water barrels, eliminating her water supplies; or she can NOT SLASH, which keeps her water supplies completely intact. Having seen the action taken by Sonia, Jen can choose to CHARGE or to WAIT. The payoffs are as follows: if Sonia the Terrible chooses to SLASH and Jen CHARGES, the payoffs are (100, 20) to Sonia and Jen, respectively. If Sonia SLASHES and Jen WAITS, the payoffs are (10, 30). On the other hand, if Sonia chooses to NOT SLASH and Jen CHARGES, the payoff is (20, 15). If Sonia opts to NOT SLASH and Jen chooses to WAIT, the payoffs are (40, 10), respectively. What is the subgame perfect (or credible) equilibrium outcome? a. Sonia the Terrible chooses to SLASH; Jen the Brave chooses to CHARGE b. Sonia the Terrible chooses to NOT SLASH; Jen the Brave chooses to WAIT c. Sonia the…