In the above game, explain in words what condition player 1's probability p of playing strategy A must satisfy to induce player 2 to mix strategies between a and b in equilibrium. Solve for the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium where player 1 chooses A with probability P and player 2 chooses a with probability p, for 0 < p, P < 1.

In the above game, explain in words what condition player 1's probability p of playing strategy A must satisfy to induce player 2 to mix strategies between a and b in equilibrium. Solve for the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium where player 1 chooses A with probability P and player 2 chooses a with probability p, for 0 < p, P < 1.

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

Game Theory Consider the entry game with incomplete information studied in class. An incumbent politician's cost of campaigning can be high or low and the entrant does not know this cost (but the incumbent does). In class, we found two pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria in this game. Assume that the probability that the cost of campaigning is high is a parameter p, 0 < p < 1. Show that when p is large enough, there is only one pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. What is it? What is the intuition? How large does p have to be? Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.
There are three players who must each choose an “effort” level from 1 to 7, that is, Si = {1, 2, 3, ..., 7}. The payoff for each player i is ui(si, s−i) = 10 max{s1, s2, s3} − si. How many pure- strategy Nash equilibria are there? Select one: a.2 b.4 c.none of the other answers d.3 e.1
For various values of X(for player1 and player 2), find all Nash equilibria of the following game with von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences:
- Individuals 1 and 2 are forming a company. The value of their relationship depends on the effort that each expends. Suppose that individual i's utility from the relationship is x² + x; − xixj, where x¿ is individual i 's effort and x ; is the effort of the other person (i = 1, 2). Assume x1, x2 ≥ 0. Which statement is true? There is a Nash equilibrium in which each player chooses effort level k > 0. This equilibrium is Pareto efficient. There is no mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. There is a unique Nash equilibrium in which each player chooses no effort x¿ = x; = 0. The set of Nash equilibria in this game is finite. There is a Nash equilibrium in which xi = 0 and x ; = 1| =
If the players play pure strategies, the game has no Nash equilibrium. But what if they choose their moves randomly? Let each player instead opt for a mixed strategy instead of a pure strategy. The first will play action Z with probability p, and the second will play action L with probability q. At which pair (p, q) are the mixed strategies of the players in equilibrium? At which pair (p, q) does neither player want to change strategy? When are both strategies simultaneously the best response?
For various values of X(for player1 and player 2), find all Nash equilibria of the following game with von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences:
Consider a modified version of the ultimatum game, with altruism. There is a pie of size 50 to be split between Proposer (P) and Responder (R). In the first stage, P offers a share 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 of the pie to R. In the second stage, R accepts or rejects P's offer. If R accepts, the pie is split according to the proposed division, with P receiving (1 - x) x 50 and R receiving x x 50. If R rejects, both players receive none of the pie. But players' payoffs are not equal to how much of the pie they receive. In particular, payoffs in the event of an accepted offer are: Up (1x) x 50+ bx × 50 UR = x x 50+b(1-x) × 50 (Payoffs in the event of a rejected offer are 0 for both players.) Here, the parameter b > 0 measures how altruistic players are, i.e. how much "happier" a player is when his opponent receives more pie. a) Suppose b = 0.5. How much pie does P receive in the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of the game? (specify the total amount of pie, not the share). b) Suppose b=0.5. What is P's…
The count is three balls and two strikes, and the bases are empty. The batter wants to maximize the probability of getting a hit or a walk, while the pitcher wants to minimize this probability. The pitcher has to decide whether to throw a fast ball or a curve ball, while the batter has to decide whether to prepare for a fast ball or a curve ball. The strategic form of this game is shown here. Find all Nash equilibria in mixed strategies.
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.
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.
Consider a variant of the ultimatum game we studied in class in which players have fairness considerations. The timing of the game is as usual. First, player 1 proposes the split (100 – x, x) of a hundred dollars to player 2, where x € [0, 100]. Player 2 observes the split and decides whether to accept (in which case they receive money according to the proposed split) or reject (in which case they both get 0 dollars). But now player i's utility equals to her monetary utility minus the disutility from unfairness proportional to the difference in the monetary outcomes. That is, given a final split (m1, m2), let u1(m1, m2) = m1 – B1(m1 -– m2)² u1(m1, m2) = m2 - B2(m1 – m2)², where B1, B2 are parameters of the game indicating how strongly players care about fairness. Note that the case we considered in class corresponds to ß1 = B2 = 0.
Suppose that you are a manager. You are considering whether or not to monitor employees with the payoffs in the normal-form accompanying game. Worker Work Shirk Manager Monitor -1,1 1,-1 Don't Monitor 1,-1 -1,1 Which of the following pairs of strategies constitutes a Nash equilibrium? Multiple Choice Manager monitors and worker shirks. Manager does not monitor and worker works. Manager monitors and worker works. O None of the answers is correct.