Here is a payoff matrix that is interesting. I am not in an imaginative mood, so I won't try to tell a story about why the payoffs come out this way. Find all the pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Is this a game where you expect that players would end up in a Nash equilibrium? What would you expect to happen and why?

Here is a payoff matrix that is interesting. I am not in an imaginative mood, so I won't try to tell a story about why the payoffs come out this way. Find all the pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Is this a game where you expect that players would end up in a Nash equilibrium? What would you expect to happen and why?

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

Hello, please help me to solve this question in Game Theory. Thanks in advance!Consider a first price sealed-bid auction of an object with two bidders. Each bidder i’s valuation of the object is vi, which is known to both bidders. The auction rules are that each player submits a bid in a sealed envelope. The envelopes are then opened, and the bidder who has submitted the highest bid gets the object and pays the auctioneer the amount of his bid. If the bidders submit the same bid, each gets the object with probability 0.5. Bids must be integers. Find a Nash equilibrium for this game and show whether it is unique.
Three politicians are voting on whether to allow themselves a salary increase of$3,500per a year. If they vote in favor of a raise, then they lose some public support, costing them each$1,500 per year. The salary increase passes if two or more politicians vote in favor of it. What is this game’s Nash equilibrium (or equilibria)? Explain. There is no need to draw a payoff matrix.
So imagine you are playing this game as the second player and you are both given a 10 dollars and the dictator decides to offer you 25 cents and that she/he will keep $9.25. Your only choice is to accept the 25 cents or reject the offer and get no money at all. What would you do? What would be considered ‘rational’ from the perspective of utility maximization? What would you do if this is a continued game and the same scenario will happen multiple times not just once? Do you think others will react the same way you would?
Question 1 Consider the following game. Player 1 has 3 actions (Top, middle,Bottom) and player 2 has three actions (Left, Middle, Right). Each player chooses their action simultaneously. The game is played only once. The first element of the payoff vector is player 1’s payoff. Note that one of the payoffs to player 2 has been omitted (denoted by x). A) Suppose that the value of x is such that player 2 has a strictly dominant strategy. Find the solution to the game. What solution concept did you use to solve the game? B) Suppose that the value of x is such the player 2 does NOT have a strictly dominant strategy. Find the solution to the game. What solution concept did you use to solve the game?
Let's think about a traditional game theory principal agent game. In this game we have two players, Lauren and Jason Lauren will choose to invest $500 dollars with Jason If she doesn't invest the money, she keeps the $500 and Jason gets nothing If she does invest the money, then Jason has a choice-he can cooperate by investing Lauren's money and then splitting the profit of another $500. This would give Lauren $750 (her original $500 investment plus $250 of profit) and would give Jason $250. Jason's other choice is to appropriate, or to steal Lauren's money and not invest it. If he does this, Lauren ends up with nothing and Jason has the entire $500. The following diagram outlines this game. Principal Agent Game Jason (750.250) Invest appropriate 10. 500) doninve What will happen in this game? Lauren will not invest Lauren will invest and Jason will cooperate Lauren will invest and Jason will appropriate Next page
find all Nash equilibria in this game using von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences:
Hello, please help me to solve this Game Theory question. Thanks in advance! Hobby hunter Jack decides what to do the next weekend. He can either stay at home and watch movies (Movies), or call his friend Katherine to go hunting (Hunt). If he stays in, both Jack and Katherine get a payoff of 2. If he decides to hunt, he knows the situation with his friend will resemble a classic stag hunt game with simultaneous moves: Hunting a stag is better than hunting a rabbit, but it only works if they cooperate. The hunting subgame is captured as: Katherine Stag Rabbit Jack Stag 3 , 3 0 , 1 Rabbit 1 , 0 1 , 1 1. Write the normal form representation of the full game, including Jack’s initial decision.2. Identify any pure-strategy Nash equilibria. How does this compare to the pure strategy Nash equilibria of the hunting game alone?
Answer the following questions: 1.What is the Nash Equilibrium of this game? 2. Does Starbucks have dominant pricing strategy, given these predicted payoffs? Does Dunkin' Donuts have a dominant pricing strategy, given these payoffs? Explain. 3. Is this game an example of a prisoner's dilemma? Why or why not?
Consider the following game where two players have to decide if they want to buy a movie ticket or a baseball ticket. They have the highest payoffs when they both buy tickets to the same activity, but must decide simultaneously what to buy without knowing what the other person will do. a. Does either player have a dominant strategy? b. How many equilibria does this game have? c. Is this an example of a prisoner’s dilemma? Explain. d. What will be the outcome if your friend buys their ticket first and you can observe their choice?
find all Nash equilibria in this game using von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences:
Player 2 Middle Left P1: $45 P1: $70 Up P2: $45 P2: $50 Player 1 P1: $50 P1: $60 Middle P2: $50 P2: $60 P1: $60 P1: $50 Down P2: $60 P2: $70 In the game shown above, list all of the Nash Equilibrium (please check ALL that apply) (up, left) (up, middle) (up, right) (middle, left) (middle, middle) (middle, right) (down, left) (down, middle) (down, right) No equilibrium Right P1: $45 P2: $60 P1: $50 P2: $70 P1: $60 P2: $60
We can see from the payoff matrix that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this game because at least one firm would always have an incentive to change its behavior. From Nash's theorem, we know there must be at least one Nash equilibrium so there must be a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for this game. Find the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium by first deleting all dominated strategies in the game What's the expected payoff to Firm 1 in the equilibrium?