iformation. Player l's value for the object, denoted by vi is drawn From a continuous distribution with (1.2] as its support. Player 2's value for the object, denoted by v2, is likewise drawn from the interval 0, 1]. 1. What is the equilibrium in dominant strategies if a second price auction is used to allocate the object. Is the outcome ex-post efficient? 2. For what pairs (v1, v2) should Player 1 and Player 2 respectively be allocated the object in a mechanism that maximizes expected revenue for the seller? 3. Comment on the differing allocations you obtained in the previous two parts.

iformation. Player l's value for the object, denoted by vi is drawn From a continuous distribution with (1.2] as its support. Player 2's value for the object, denoted by v2, is likewise drawn from the interval 0, 1]. 1. What is the equilibrium in dominant strategies if a second price auction is used to allocate the object. Is the outcome ex-post efficient? 2. For what pairs (v1, v2) should Player 1 and Player 2 respectively be allocated the object in a mechanism that maximizes expected revenue for the seller? 3. Comment on the differing allocations you obtained in the previous two parts.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.9P

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?
Problem 2. Consider the partnership-game we discussed in Lecture 3 (pages 81-87 of the textbook). Now change the setup of the game so that player 1 chooses x = [0, 4], and after observing the choice of x, player 2 chooses y ≤ [0, 4]. The payoffs are the same as before. (a) Find all SPNE (subgame perfect Nash equilibria) in pure strategies. (b) Can you find a Nash equilibrium, with player 1 choosing x = 1, that is not subgame perfect? Explain.
Consider a Vickery auction. There are N bidders, each of them values the object £vi, with i = 1…N. Each bidder can submit a bid in a sealed envelope. Once all the bids have been made, the envelopes are opened. The winner of the auction is the bidder who made the highest bid, however, s/he pays the second-highest bid. What are the weakly dominant strategies in this game? Is there only one?
Consider the following simultaneous game: Player 1 U D Player 2 L 30,20 -10, -10 R -10, -10 20,30 Suppose player 1 plays a mixed strategy in which she plays U 25% of the time and D 75% of the time, and player 2 plays a mixed strategy in which she plays L 25% of the time and R 75% of the time. This pair of strategies ✓a Nash equilibrium. Player 1's expected payoff from playing U (when player 2 plays the mixed strategy above) is
6
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.
Which is false for the following game? C R. T. 3, 2 0,3 3, 3 M 5,0 4, 1 3, 1 B 2, 2 4, 5 1, 1 A. (M,C) and (B,C) are the only pure strategy Nash Equilibria OB. There is a Nash cquilibrium in which R is played with positive probability C. There is no Nash equilibrium in which L is played with positive probability OD. There is no Nash equilibrium in which both players choose two of their actions with positive probability
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
None
M7
Give new answer with proper explanation
Consider the following payoff matrix, where the first entry is the payoff for the row player. В L R 11,10 4,11 3,12 A M 12,9 5,10 6,9 D 13,8 4,6 5,3 Select all Nash equilibria in pure strategies. O (U,L) O (U,C) O (U,R) O (M,L) O (M,C) O (M,R) O (D,L) O (D,C) O (D,R) O None