How is a Nash equilibrium outcome different from a rationalizable outcome?In a Nash equilibrium players are allowed to randomise.Rationalizable outcomes apply to dynamic games whereas Nash equilibrium does not.In a Nash equilibrium each player always has the correct conjecture about what the other player will do.Nash equilibrium only allows for unilateral changes in strategy.None of the above.No Answer

A Nash equilibrium is a notion from game theory that refers to a stable condition in a game where…

How is a Nash equilibrium outcome different from a rationalizable outcome? O In a Nash equilibrium players are allowed to randomise. O Rationalizable outcomes apply to dynamic games whereas Nash equilibrium does not. O In a Nash equilibrium each player always has the correct conjecture about what the other player will do. O Nash equilibrium only allows for unilateral changes in strategy. O None of the above. O No Answer

How is a Nash equilibrium outcome different from a rationalizable outcome? O In a Nash equilibrium players are allowed to randomise. O Rationalizable outcomes apply to dynamic games whereas Nash equilibrium does not. O In a Nash equilibrium each player always has the correct conjecture about what the other player will do. O Nash equilibrium only allows for unilateral changes in strategy. O None of the above. O No Answer

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.1P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

If a game has a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium then which of the following statements is true? There is at least two pure strategy Nash equilibrium. There are at least two rationalizable strategies. Players prefer any pure strategy Nash equilibrium to the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. Players always prefer to mix when the other player mixes. None of the above.
Nash equilibrium refers to the optimal outcome of a game where there is no incentive for the players to deviate from their initial strategy. An individual (or player) can receive no incremental benefit from changing actions, assuming other players remain constant in their strategies. Given this premise, can there be a no Nash equilibrium?
Which of the following statements is true? An outcome cannot be a Nash equilibrium if it is Pareto dominated by every other outcome. If all outcomes of a game are rationalizable, then there is at least one Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. Games with a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium cannot have a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. Adding more players to a game will increase the number of Nash equilibria. None of the above. No Answer
A Nash Equilibrium is the equilibrium of a game in which; Both players get the largest payoff amount Both players get the best payoff independent of what the other players choices are Both player, with the knowledge of what the other players possible moves are, do not have incentive to deviate from their strategy There is incomplete information of the game and each player makes the move that is best for them and their payoff outcome
True or false? If a game has a Nash equilibrium, that equilibrium will be the equilibrium that we expect to observe in the real world. False. People don’t always act in the way that a Nash equilibrium requires. People don’t always make the necessary calculations and they take into account the outcome of others. False. A Nash equilibrium is based on very strict assumptions that rarely hold in the real world. No real-world situation leads to a Nash equilibrium. True. As long as people are rational and have their own self-interest at heart, real-life games will result in the Nash equilibrium. True. Nash’s theory of equilibrium outcomes was derived from real-world interactions. The theory holds true for almost all real-world scenarios.
Player 2 1 2 3 1 (0,2) (1,0) (0,2) (0,2) Player 1 2 (1,0) (1,0) 3 (0,2) (1,0) (0,2) 1. Find all pure. strategy Nash equilibria 2. Does the game have a mixed strategy equilibrium? If so, find one. Otherwise, provide an explanation
In a Nash equilibrium Group of answer choices players are always maximizing their joint profit. one player is always earning a higher profit than the other. equilibrium can be achieved when players play the game sequentially. all of the above must occur. none of the above is true.
Consider the following game where two players must simultaneously announce an integer number between 1 and 5. If you announce a number which is 1 lower than the opponent your payoff is 10, otherwise it is 0. Which of the following statements is true? All outcomes of the game are rationalizable. This game has no Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. This game has a unique pure strategy Nash equilibrium. A strictly dominant strategy exists for at least one player. More than one of the above. No Answer
Consider the following Guessing Game. There are n = 10 players simultaneously choosing a number in {1, 2, 3}. The winners are those closest to 1/2 the average guess (they evenly split the prize between the winners if there is more than one). Find the set of rationalizable strategy profiles. Justify your answer. please no handwriting and this course about game theory (topic Rationalizability) answer with all steps, please
You have just played rock, paper, scissors with your friend. You chose scissors and he chose paper, so you won. Is this a Nash equilibrium? Explain why or why not.
In penalty shoot-outs, the Nash Equilibrium strategies of goalies and players depend on how important the game is. In more important games, the Nash Equilibrium will favor low-risk strategies since players are risk-averse. True False
This table shows a game played between two players, A and B. The payoffs in the table are shown as (Payoff to A, Payoff to B). B Right (2, 2) (1, 3) Left (3, 1) (0,0) Up A Down Which outcome is the Nash equilibrium in this game? (Up, Right) (Up, Left) (Down, Right) (Down, Left)