Consider a two-player game in which the players take turns, with player 1 moving first. When it is a player's turn, she must announce a number between 1 and 3. The announced number is added to the previously announced numbers. The player who announces the number such that the sum of all announced numbers is 6 wins (receives 1) and the other loses (receives 0). Please indicate whether or not each of the following sequences of announcements is a Nash equilibrium of the game. Hint: Think about how one verifies whether or not a pair of strategies is a Nash equilibrium. P1 says 3, then P2 says 2, then P1 says 1 P1 says 1, then P2 says 3, then P1 says 2 P1 says 2, then P2 says 3, then P1 says 1 P1 says 3, then P2 says 1, then P1 says 2

Consider a two-player game in which the players take turns, with player 1 moving first. When it is a player's turn, she must announce a number between 1 and 3. The announced number is added to the previously announced numbers. The player who announces the number such that the sum of all announced numbers is 6 wins (receives 1) and the other loses (receives 0). Please indicate whether or not each of the following sequences of announcements is a Nash equilibrium of the game. Hint: Think about how one verifies whether or not a pair of strategies is a Nash equilibrium. P1 says 3, then P2 says 2, then P1 says 1 P1 says 1, then P2 says 3, then P1 says 2 P1 says 2, then P2 says 3, then P1 says 1 P1 says 3, then P2 says 1, then P1 says 2

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

Two firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium? Is the answer (B,B)? If not please explian what is the answer?
!
Imagine that there are two snowboard manufacturers (FatSki and WideBoard) in the market. Each firm can either produce ten or twenty snowboards per day. The table below (see attached) shows the profit per snowboard for each firm that will result given the joint production decisions of these two firms. Draw the game payoff matrix for this situation. Does either player have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it? What is the Nash equilibrium solution and how many boards should each player produce each day? Since FatSki and WideBoard must play this game repeatedly (i.e. make production decisions every day), what strategy would you advise them to play in order to maximize their payoff over the long term?
Up Down Up Up Down Down Player 1 Player 2 In the game above, what is/are the EFFICIENT sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium? (up,up) (up,down) (down, up) (down, down) No EFFICIENT equilibrium exists P1 gets $100 P2 gets $100 P1 gets $10 P2 gets $10 P1 gets $15 P2 gets $5 P1 gets $110 P2 gets $10
Once again, two ice cream truck vendors, A and B, are playing a simultaneous pricing game. If only one of the vendors prices low, he gets all the customers for a payoff of 12, while the other vendor gets no customers and a payoff of zero. If both vendors price high, they each get a payoff of 6. If both price low, they each get a payoff of 5. Suppose that the above game is repeated indefinitely, and together the vendors adopt a trigger strategy such that they would start charging the low price only if the other vendor charged a low price last time. Provided that the vendors stick to their new strategy, what would be the Nash equilibrium going forward? a) Both the vendors price high b) Both the vendors price low c) Vendor A prices high, vendor B prices low d) Vendor B prices high, vendor A prices low
In 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.
See the extensive form game in the image attached (the payoffs of player 1 are written on top and the payoffs of player 2 are on the bottom). a) Write this game in normal form (a player's strategy is a complete contingent plan that tells them what to play at each of their information sets) (b) Find all the Nash equilibria of the normal form game from part (a)
Two firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium?
Up Down Up Up Down Down Player 1 Player 2 In the game above, what is/are the EFFICIENT sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium? (up,up) (up,down) (down, up) (down, down) No EFFICIENT equilibrium exists P1 gets $45 P2 gets $155 P1 gets $100 P2 gets $10 P1 gets $85 P2 gets $85 P1 gets $95 P2 gets $95
John and Paul are walking in the woods one day when suddenly an angry bear emerges from the underbrush. They each can do one of two things: run away or stand and fight. If one of them runs away and the other fights, then the one who ran will get away unharmed (payoff of 0) while the one who fights will be killed (payoff -200). If they both run, then the bear will chase down one of them and eat them to death but the other one will get away unharmed. Assuming they don't know which one will escape we will call this a payoff of -100 for both. If they BOTH fight, then they will successfully drive off the bear but they may be injured in the process (payoff -20). Construct a payoff matrix for this game and identify the pure strategy Nash equilibrium. (Indicate it with words not with a circle!)
Consider a simultaneous move game with two players. Player 1 has three possible actions (A, B, or C) and Player 2 has two possible actions (D or E.) In the payoff matrix below, each cell contains the payoff for Player 1 followed by the payoff for Player 2. Identify any dominated strategies in this game. If there are none, state this clearly.
Consider the following information for a simultaneous-move game: two discount stores (megastore and superstore) are interested in expanding their market share through advertising. The table below depicts the profits of both stores with and without advertising. Payoffs for Megastore are in bold A Nash Equilibrium Superstore Advertise Don't Advertise Megastore Advertise $95, $80 $305, $55 Don't Advertise $65, $285 $165, $115 If firms could collude, then it would be optimal. ‍for the Megastore to advertise and for the Superstore to advertise ‍for the Megastore to advertise and for the Superstore not to advertise ‍for the Megastore to not advertise and for the Superstore to advertise ‍for the Megastore to not advertise and for the Superstore to not advertise