(b) Consider the following game. 2 L M H L 4,4 2,4 1,5 1 M 4,2 3,3 0,2 H 5,1 2,0 0,0 Suppose the game above is played twice. The players do not discount the future (i.e. the discount factor for each player is 8 = 1). Describe a subgame-perfect equilibrium of this twice- repeated game in which players play (L, L) in period 1. Consider an auction for a single object with N> 1 symmetric, risk-neutral bidders whose private valuations v¡, i € {1,...,N}, are independent draws from a given distribution F on the in- terval [0, 1]. Prove that in a sealed-bid second-price auction (i.e. Vickrey auction), bidding true value is a weakly dominant strat- egy for any bidder.

(b) Consider the following game. 2 L M H L 4,4 2,4 1,5 1 M 4,2 3,3 0,2 H 5,1 2,0 0,0 Suppose the game above is played twice. The players do not discount the future (i.e. the discount factor for each player is 8 = 1). Describe a subgame-perfect equilibrium of this twice- repeated game in which players play (L, L) in period 1. Consider an auction for a single object with N> 1 symmetric, risk-neutral bidders whose private valuations v¡, i € {1,...,N}, are independent draws from a given distribution F on the in- terval [0, 1]. Prove that in a sealed-bid second-price auction (i.e. Vickrey auction), bidding true value is a weakly dominant strat- egy for any bidder.

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

There is a first-priced auction where 3 players value object at v1=v2=90 and v3=70. Player with highest bid wins object and pays own bid. Player i's payoff is vi-bi. When there is a tie, winner is player with smallest number (ex. player 2 wins if ties with player 3). 1) Is (90,90,70) a Nash equilibrium? 2) Can player 3 win in a Nash equilibrium if it was second-price auction?
i need the answer quickly
2- Consider the following game. Player 2 Player 1 U 12, 2 | 3, 9 5, 8 4, 2 D (a) Find all the Nash equilibria, pure and mixed. (b) Suppose that the payoff of the column player u:(D, L) is reduced from 8 to 6, but all other payoffs remain the same. Again, find all the pure- and mixed-strategy Nash equilibria. (c) Compare the mixed-strategy equilibria in parts (a) and (b). Did this worsening in one of player 2's payoffs change player 2's equilibrium mixed strategy? Did it change player l's? Give some intuition.
Refer to Table Left-Right-ZigZag. How many pure strategy Nash equilibria does this game have? Table: Left-Right-ZigZag Player 1 Drive left Driver right Zigzag 1) 1 2) 2 3) 3 4) 4 5) None of the above. Drive left (1,1) (-1,-1) (0,0) Player 2 Driver right (-1,-1) (1,1) (0,0) Zigzag (0,0) (0,0) (0,0)
For each of the following games, identify the backwards induction equilibrium and the equilibrium strategy for each player. 5. b. (1,1) (0,2) (2.2) (0,1) (1,) (1.0)
Player 1 Cooperate (C) Defect (D) If the game has a dominant strategy, what is it? There is none. If the game has a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies, what is it? There is none. Cooperate (C) 3,3 8,0 Cooperate (C) is a dominant strategy for both players. Defect (D) is a dominant strategy for both players. Cooperate (C) is a dominant strategy for 1, and Defect (D) is a dominant strategy for 2. C, C is the only Nash equilibrium. D, D is the only Nash equilibrium. C, C and D, D are both Nash equilibria. Player 2 Defect (D) 0,8 1,1
Consider again the normal form of the Prisoner's dilemma game. Determine any Nash Equilibrium. Player 2 R (-10,-10) (-1,-25) (-25,-1) (-3,-3) C Player 1 R
Construct the normal representation and the fully reduced normal representation of the game shown in Figure 1. 0 (0.5) (0.5) 1.r 1.s W1 X1 y1 Z1 0,0 2.t 2.t 0,4 a2 b2 a2 b2 Figure 1: Extensive-form game 2,-2 -2,2 -2, 2 2,-2
Suppose that, in an ultimatum game, the proposer may not propose less than $1 nor fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $1, $2, …, or $10 (see image attached below). The responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Suppose, first, that this game is played by two egoists, for whom u(x,y)=x. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game. Suppose, second, that this game is played by two altruists, for whom u(x,y) = ⅔(x)1/2 + ⅓(y)1/2. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game.
Player 2 A B C А 2, 2 6,1 1,1 Player 1 B 1,6 5,5 1,1 1,1 1,1 4,4 Consider the simultaneous move game represented in normal form by this payoff matrix. Suppose that the game is repeated for two periods. Which of the following outcomes could occur in some subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE) of this repeated game? Choose True if you think the outcome can be a SPE, otherwise choose False. (B, B) is played in the first period, (C, C) is played in the second period. (A, A) is played in both periods. (C, C) is played in both periods.
Problem 3 Consider the following simultaneous normal form game: P.2 R 0,0 -1, 1 1, -1 P.1 P 1, -1 0,0 -1, 1 S -1, 1 1, -1 0,0 Now assume the game is not simultaneous and player 1 gets to play first. Create a game tree that represents the sequential game. Also, name each node, define the set of information sets for each player, show which nodes are in which information set and add define action sets at each info set.
Consider the following game: