Player 1 and Player 2 will play one round of the Rock-Paper-Scissors game. The winner receives a payoff +1, the loser receives a payoff -1. If it is a tie, then each player receives a payoff of zero. Suppose Player 2 is using a non-optimal strategy: he/she plays Rock with probability 35%; Paper with probability 45%; and Scissors with probability 20%. Given that Player 1 knows Player 2 is using this strategy, the best response of Player 1 is to play O a mixed strategy with probability 1/3 each (Rock, Paper and Scissors) O Scissors with probability 100% O any strategy (any strategy is a best response for Player 1) O Rock with probability 100% O Paper with probability 100%

Player 1 and Player 2 will play one round of the Rock-Paper-Scissors game. The winner receives a payoff +1, the loser receives a payoff -1. If it is a tie, then each player receives a payoff of zero. Suppose Player 2 is using a non-optimal strategy: he/she plays Rock with probability 35%; Paper with probability 45%; and Scissors with probability 20%. Given that Player 1 knows Player 2 is using this strategy, the best response of Player 1 is to play O a mixed strategy with probability 1/3 each (Rock, Paper and Scissors) O Scissors with probability 100% O any strategy (any strategy is a best response for Player 1) O Rock with probability 100% O Paper with probability 100%

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

L R 1,2,3 3,1,1 D 3,1,0 2,5,2 L T 0,2,0 4,1,4 4,1,1 0,5,2 Consider both pure and mixed strategies, if probability p assigns to T of player 1. q assigns to L of player 2. r assigns to L of player 3. Does this have a nash equilibrium if r =1 or 0?
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
Table 9-03. Suppose you are a general in the army. Your country is at war. You are trying to invade the enemy. You can attack on the enemys east coast or the west coast. The enemy has only enough troops to defend one coast. The payoff matrix below represents whether you or the enemy wins (represented by 1) or loses (represented by 0). Enemy Defend east coast Defend west coast Enemy: 1 Enemy: 0 Attack east coast You: 0 You: 1 You Enemy: 0 Enemy: 1 Attack west coast You: 1 You: 0 Refer to Table 9-03. To win the war, O a. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the east coast. O b. you must attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or the west coast is irrelevant to you. c. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the west coast. d. you must never attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or…
A buyer and seller trade with each other for an infinite number of periods. Both parties have a discount factor of d, where 0 < d < 1. In each period both parties can play trust (T) or to play selfish (S). If both the buyer and seller play T the payoffs are 4 to each player. If both parties plays the payoffs are 3 to each player. If one player plays S and the other T, the payoffs are 6 to the player who opted for 5 and 1 to the party that opted for T. Consider the following trigger strategy. In the first period play T. In any subsequent period, play T if in every previous period the outcome was (T, T), if not play S. What is the minimum d required for this trigger strategy to be subgame perfect equilibrium? O None of the other answers are correct. O 1/4 O 1/3 O 3/4
Here is a Bayesian BOS game. Man has a special preference t1 on boxing while woman has a special preference t2 on opera. Both are in [0,2]. The preference information is private. i.e. Each knows his (her) own preference but does not know the other's preference. The below is the payoff. M/W Boxing Opera Воxing 3+t1,1 0,0 Opera 0,0 1,3+t2 We are checking whether the below strategy profile is a Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. "Man chooses boxing if t1>p while woman chooses opera if t2>g." 1) Given t1, man will choose boxing if t1> /g- 2) Given t2, woman will choose opera if t2> /p- 4) By shoving the simultaneous equations, we get p=q=sqrt(6)-
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
3. Two individuals are involved in a synergistic relationship. If both individuals devote more effort to the relationship, they are both better off. Specifically, an effort level is a nonnegative number, and player 1's payoff function is e₁(1+€₂-e₁), where ei is player i's effort level. For player 2 the cost of effort is either the same as that of player 1, and hence her payoff function is given by e2(1+e₁ - e₂), or effort is very costly for her in which case her payoff function is given by e₂(1 + e₁ — 2e2). 1 Player 2 knows player 1's payoff function and whether the cost of effort is high for herself or not. Player 1, however, is uncertain about player 2's cost of effort. He believes that the cost of effort is low with probability p, and high with probability 1 - p, where 0 < p < 1. Find the Bayesian Nash equilibrium of this game as a function of p.
Olivia is thinking about opening a new bakery (the entrant). There is already a bakery open in her neighborhood (the incumbent), and the owner of the incumbent bakery makes it clear that if Olivia enters the market, they will cut their prices in an attempt to drive the new bakery out of business. Based on the payoff matrix below, is the incumbent’s threat credible? That is, if Olivia opens a new bakery, will the incumbent actually lower their prices? Note: the entrant chooses the row, the incumbent chooses the column High price Low price Enter 1, 2 -1, 1 Don’t enter 0, 10 0, 1 a. Yes, the threat is credible b. No, the threat is not credible
Please help with #1
Please help with #2
please send handwritten solution for Q3
In a mixed strategy equilibrium of the game below, what is the probability with which Player 2 chooses r (if there are multiple equilibria with different probabilities of a, choose any one)? Player 2 y a 3, 3 4, 2 Player 1 b 6,3 2, 6 5. 3 3, 2 Numerical answer