MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395
|
|
- Christian Crawford
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 95 SPRING, 006 PROFESSOR A. JOSEPH GUSE () There are positions available with wages w and w. Greta and Mary each simultaneously apply to one of them. If they apply to the same job they will have to split the offered wage in half between them. If they apply to different jobs they will get to keep the entire wage offered for their respective positions. For example, if Greta applies to position and Mary applies to position, Greta s payoff will be w, while Mary s will be w. However, if they both applied to position, then both of their payoffs would be w. (a) Draw a normal-form payoff matrix for this game. Mary Greta J J w w Job(J) w w w w Job(J) w w Where in each cell: u G u M (b) Describe any pure-strategy Nash equilibria, if they exist. If not, explain why they do not exist. ANSWER. Suppose we have condition Γ = {w < w and w < w }. In this case there are exactly PSNE represented by the strategy profiles (s G, s M ) = (J, J) and (s G, s M ) = (J, J). To see why these are NE consider the first equilibrium where Greta takes Job and Mary takes job. In this outcome Greta gets w and Mary gets w. If Greta deviates choosing J, she would split Mary s wage ending up with w instead. Since we are assuming the conditions in Γ, Greta obviously would rather not deviate. Similarly from Mary. The second equilibrium is justified by parallel arguments. See part (d), for a description of the equilibria in the cases where condition Γ does not hold. (c) Find and describe any mixed-strategy Nash equilibria. ANSWER. Again assume the conditions in Γ defined above hold. Let r be the probability that Greta will choose J. Since Greta has only two pure-strategies, r completely describes her strategy. Similarly let m be the probablility that Mary chooses
2 SPRING, 006 PROFESSOR A. JOSEPH GUSE J. Now let s find each players best response correspondences. First Greta s, r (m). To find r (m), we need to consider Greta s utility of playing r when Mary plays m. u G (r, m) = ( r)( m) w + ( r)mw + r( m)w + rm w differentiating this w.r.t r we get u G (r, m) r = ( m) w mw + ( m)w + m w = ( + m) w + w m w Notice how the derivative has no instances of r left in any of its terms. (This make employing our usual trick of setting the derivate equal to zero and finding some optimal r problematic). However the derivate can still tell us a lot. If it is positive, it means that Greta s expected utility is increasing in the probability that she choose J. If we find this to be the case for certain values of m, then it means that Greta should make r as high as possible, chooseing J with probability. A negative value would mean that she should choose J with probability, while it being equal to zero, would mean that she is indifferent. So let s ask when u G (r, m) r ( + m) w + w m w 0 w + w m( w + w ) w w m(w + w ) 0 w w (w + w ) m Hence by the argument made above, if m is strictly less than w w (w +w ), J is the only best response for Greta. If m is strictly greater than this amount, J is Greta s best response and if m equals w w (w +w ), then Greta may play a mixed strategy. Summarizing, we have 0 if m > w w (w +w ) r (m) = if m < w w (w +w ) [0, ] if m = w w (w +w ) An appeal to symmetry gives us a similar result for Mary s best response function
3 MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 95 0 if r > w w (w +w ) m (r) = if r < w w (w +w ) [0, ] if r = w w (w +w ) Hence there is one mixed strategy equilibrium at (r, m) = ( w w (w +w ), w w (w +w )). Figure shows a picture of the two players BR correspondences. In it we see that they intersect at three points. The interior intersection represents the mixed strategy equilibrium. The two intersections at the corners represent the two PSNE described in the previous part. PSNE Mary s BR, m (r) Mixed-Strategy NE m =Prob(sM = J) w w (w +w ) 0 Greta s BR, r (m) PSNE w 0 w (w +w ) r =Prob(s G = J) Figure. Greta and Mary s Best Response Correspondences. (d) Does the number of Nash Equilibria in this game (pure and mixed) depends on the values of w and w. Explain. ANSWER. Yes, indeed. If condition Γ = {w < w and w < w } holds, then there are PSNE and Mixed Strategy NE as described in parts (b) and (c). There are 4 ways to violate Γ. We could have w = w, w > w, w = w, or w > w. I will discuss the first two cases. The last two cases are perfectly analagous to the first two. Case: w = w. Note what happens to the switching point in the players best response functions in this case. w w (w +w ) = 0. Hence the mixed strategy equilbrium in Figure becomes a PSNE in which both players choose J. Note that the other PSNE remain. So the tally in this case is PSNE and 0 Mixed. Case: w > w. Note what happens to the switching point in the players best response functions in this case. w w (w +w ) < 0. In other words such parameter
4 4 SPRING, 006 PROFESSOR A. JOSEPH GUSE values for w and w would push the Mixed-strategy eqm right out of existence. Moreover the PSNE involving the players taking different jobs disappear as well and we are left with just (J, J). So the tally in this case is PSNE and 0 Mixed.
5 MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 95 5 () Three players {A, B, C}, must decide unanimously how to divide a dollar. The bargaining proceeds as follows. At time, t = 0, Player A proposes a division (x AA, x AB, x AC ) where each x ij 0 denotes how much of the dollar i is offering to give to j such that x AA +x AB +x AC. If players B and C both approve, the dollar is allocated according to A s proposal and the game ends. If not, at time t =, B proposes (x BA, x BB, x BC ) which is subject to the same summation and unanimous approval rules. If B s proposal fails, then at time t =, C proposes (x CA, x CB, x CC ) which again must be approved unanimously and sum to or less. If C s proposal fails, the game ends with all players receiving 0. (a) Are there any players with strictly dominated strategies in this game? If so, identify one such player and the at least on such strictly dominated strategy. ANSWER. No, there are no strictly dominated strategies. Most urges to answer otherwise to this question stem either from a imprecise notion of what a strategy is or from imprecise notion of what it mean for a strategy to be strictly dominated. Remember a pure strategy must specify which action a player will take whenever it might be that player s move - even if it seems very unlikely that the player will ever get to make the move. In this game a strategy for a player is a proposed allocation whenever it is that player s turn to make a proposal AND a plan for how to vote on every possible proposal the other players will make. Moreover the proposal and voting plan can be contigent on the history of observed action up to that point. For example player B s strategy could be something like, In the first round, Vote YES on A s proposal if A proposes at least 5 cents for me and at least 0 cents for player C or at least 50 cents for me no matter how much of the remain is split between C and A. In the second round propose 50 cents for A, 40 cents for me and 0 cents for C unless A proposed less than 5 cents for me in the first round, in which case propose 0 cents for A, 50 cents for me and 40 cents for C. In the last round for YES for anything unless the voting outcome in the nd round involved YES from A and NO from me and the proposal involves giving Player A exactly 4 cents. This strategy is not intended to make sense or be allowed in equilibrium, just to give an idea of a what a strategy can and may entail. A strategy can be very complicated and the space of strategies is very large. In order to be strictly dominated a stragey has to do strictly worse than some other strategy no matter what strategies the other players adopt. To see why there are no strictly dominated strategies for player A, consider a combination of Player B and C strategies where they always vote NO on any proposal which is not their own. Since unanimity is required for passage, this would mean that no matter what Player A did, no proposal would ever pass and all players (including A) would get 0. Therefore, against this combination of strategies any strategy A plays is a best response which means nothing is strictly dominated. Using the same argument,
6 6 SPRING, 006 PROFESSOR A. JOSEPH GUSE we come to the same conclusion about the existence of dominated strategies for player B, by considering a strategic environment in which A and C vote NO on everything. Similarly for player C. Hence no player has an strictly dominated strategies. (b) Assume that all the players share a common discount factor δ, describe the unique backwards induction solution to this game. Be sure to describe how what each player s proposal would be if they got a chance to propose and what the players expected utilities of playing the game are. ANSWER. To find the backward induction solution, we begin our analysis at the end of the game in the voting stage of the final round. In this round it is player C who proposes. Suppose player C proposed any proposal involving some positive shares for B and A. Voting YES on C s proposal, no matter how small their shares are is a weakly dominant behaviour in the last round. This is due to the fact that if players A and B do not agree to C s proposal they will receive 0. Player C, anticipating this, proposes to give players A and B very small shares - practically zero - keeping very nearly for herself. Therefore if the game continues to round, players should expect to receive (x CA, x CB, x CC ) = (0, 0, ). Now consider the second to last round in which player B is proposing. C will not accept anything less than δ from B, since she anticipates getting in the rd round. B will therefore propose (0, δ, δ). Note that B proposes giving 0 to A, since A anticipates 0 in the last round. Now consider the first round in which player A is proposing. Since C anticipates δ from B in the next round, A must give C at leat δ in this round. Since B anticipates δ from himself in the next round, A must give B at least δ( δ) in this round. This leaves at most δ for player A. Hence, A s proposal will be ( δ, δ δ, δ ). There are other equilibria in this subgame involving weakly dominated strategies. Consider for example player B only agreeing to C s proposal when it provides at least 0 cents to each of B and C. If A adopts the same voting strategy, this is an equilibrium. The key to seeing why this an equilibrium is to note that in the case the C proposes less than 0 cents for either A or B, neither A nor B would be a pivotal voter: Changing one s vote to YES (because you d rather get something less than 0 cents than nothing) won t change the outcome as long as the other voter sticks to her guns. This outline of play describes the only backward induction solution not involving weakly dominated strategies, but it is not the unique backward induction solution as the problem claims. As noted above, there are other equilbria in the final subgame besides the one presumed in this outline. Similarly an argument can made that other equilibria involving dominated strategies exist in subgames further up the game tree. For example, consider a strategy profile in which the two respondants (the players who are not proposing) in each round only vote YES as long as both respondants get at least. Proposers would then be forced to propose (,, ) in each round. This constitutes an equilibrium in every subgame. In cases where proposals include less than for a respondant, no voter is pivotal and therefore no voter has any (strict) incentive to change their vote to YES. In cases where both respondants are getting at least each, both respondants are pivotal, but have no incentive to change their votes to NO, since they will just postpone getting until the following round (or 0 if its the last round).
7 MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 95 7 (c) Suppose that instead of a deterministic order of proposals, each player is selected to make a proposal in each round with probability. (That is, at each time t {0,, }, player A may propose with probability, player B with probability, and player A with probability.) How does this change the equilibrium? ANSWER. My answer focuses again on the subgame perfect (backward induction) solution not involving weakly dominated strategies. In the last round, the proposer can keep very nearly all the dollar to herself. In the second to last round, each player anticipates being the proposer in the last round with probability. Therefore the respondants in the second-to-last round require at least δ to approve and the second-to-last round prosposal is ( δ, δ, δ ) where the first share goes to the proposer (whoever that may be). In the first round, each respondant anticipates being the propose in the following round with probability and being one the responders with probability. Therefore the utility a responder gets from voting NO is always [ ( δ δ ) + ( )] δ which reduces to δ. But this is the same demand respondants have in the secondto-last round, which makes the first round proposal the same as the second-to-last: ( δ, δ, δ ). When the game starts (before the first proposer selection is made) all players expect a payoff equal to exactly. This can be confirmed by multiplying times the payoff a player will get in each role or by noting that since the whole dollar is distributed in equilibrium and each player has a equal chance of getting any of the shares, the expected payoff must be for each player. For any anticpated shares (x, y, z) each going to player i with probability, i s expected payoff must be x + y + z = (x + y + z) =.
Econ 711 Homework 1 Solutions
Econ 711 Homework 1 s January 4, 014 1. 1 Symmetric, not complete, not transitive. Not a game tree. Asymmetric, not complete, transitive. Game tree. 1 Asymmetric, not complete, transitive. Not a game tree.
More informationECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson Fall 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22)
ECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson all 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22) 1. Critique of subgame perfection. 1 Consider the following three-player sequential game. In the first
More informationThe Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final)
The Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final) Watson, Chapter 15, Exercise 1(part a). Looking at the final subgame, player 1 must
More informationTest 1. ECON3161, Game Theory. Tuesday, September 25 th
Test 1 ECON3161, Game Theory Tuesday, September 2 th Directions: Answer each question completely. If you cannot determine the answer, explaining how you would arrive at the answer may earn you some points.
More informationFDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.
FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.) Hints for Problem Set 3 1. Consider the following strategic
More informationAnswer Key: Problem Set 4
Answer Key: Problem Set 4 Econ 409 018 Fall A reminder: An equilibrium is characterized by a set of strategies. As emphasized in the class, a strategy is a complete contingency plan (for every hypothetical
More informationSI 563 Homework 3 Oct 5, Determine the set of rationalizable strategies for each of the following games. a) X Y X Y Z
SI 563 Homework 3 Oct 5, 06 Chapter 7 Exercise : ( points) Determine the set of rationalizable strategies for each of the following games. a) U (0,4) (4,0) M (3,3) (3,3) D (4,0) (0,4) X Y U (0,4) (4,0)
More informationECON 459 Game Theory. Lecture Notes Auctions. Luca Anderlini Spring 2017
ECON 459 Game Theory Lecture Notes Auctions Luca Anderlini Spring 2017 These notes have been used and commented on before. If you can still spot any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please
More informationThe Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers
Econ 5001 Spring 2018 Prof. James Peck The Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers Note: There were 4 versions of the test: A, B, C, and D, based on player 1 s
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 Bargaining We will now apply the concept of SPNE to bargaining A bit of background Bargaining is hugely interesting but complicated to model It turns out that the
More information(a) (5 points) Suppose p = 1. Calculate all the Nash Equilibria of the game. Do/es the equilibrium/a that you have found maximize social utility?
GAME THEORY EXAM (with SOLUTIONS) January 20 P P2 P3 P4 INSTRUCTIONS: Write your answers in the space provided immediately after each question. You may use the back of each page. The duration of this exam
More informationName. Answers Discussion Final Exam, Econ 171, March, 2012
Name Answers Discussion Final Exam, Econ 171, March, 2012 1) Consider the following strategic form game in which Player 1 chooses the row and Player 2 chooses the column. Both players know that this is
More informationGame Theory Problem Set 4 Solutions
Game Theory Problem Set 4 Solutions 1. Assuming that in the case of a tie, the object goes to person 1, the best response correspondences for a two person first price auction are: { }, < v1 undefined,
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 2015
CUR 41: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 015 Instructions: Please write your name in English. This exam is closed-book. Total time: 10 minutes. There are 4 questions,
More informationIn reality; some cases of prisoner s dilemma end in cooperation. Game Theory Dr. F. Fatemi Page 219
Repeated Games Basic lesson of prisoner s dilemma: In one-shot interaction, individual s have incentive to behave opportunistically Leads to socially inefficient outcomes In reality; some cases of prisoner
More informationECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium
ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium Let us consider the following sequential game with incomplete information. Two players are playing
More informationUniversité du Maine Théorie des Jeux Yves Zenou Correction de l examen du 16 décembre 2013 (1 heure 30)
Université du Maine Théorie des Jeux Yves Zenou Correction de l examen du 16 décembre 2013 (1 heure 30) Problem (1) (8 points) Consider the following lobbying game between two firms. Each firm may lobby
More informationSolution to Tutorial 1
Solution to Tutorial 1 011/01 Semester I MA464 Game Theory Tutor: Xiang Sun August 4, 011 1 Review Static means one-shot, or simultaneous-move; Complete information means that the payoff functions are
More informationEconomics 171: Final Exam
Question 1: Basic Concepts (20 points) Economics 171: Final Exam 1. Is it true that every strategy is either strictly dominated or is a dominant strategy? Explain. (5) No, some strategies are neither dominated
More informationSolution to Tutorial /2013 Semester I MA4264 Game Theory
Solution to Tutorial 1 01/013 Semester I MA464 Game Theory Tutor: Xiang Sun August 30, 01 1 Review Static means one-shot, or simultaneous-move; Complete information means that the payoff functions are
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 017 1. Sheila moves first and chooses either H or L. Bruce receives a signal, h or l, about Sheila s behavior. The distribution
More informationProblem Set 2 Answers
Problem Set 2 Answers BPH8- February, 27. Note that the unique Nash Equilibrium of the simultaneous Bertrand duopoly model with a continuous price space has each rm playing a wealy dominated strategy.
More informationProblem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1
. Economic Applications of Game Theory Fall 00 TA: Youngjin Hwang Problem 3 Solutions. (a) There are three subgames: [A] the subgame starting from Player s decision node after Player s choice of P; [B]
More informationExercises Solutions: Game Theory
Exercises Solutions: Game Theory Exercise. (U, R).. (U, L) and (D, R). 3. (D, R). 4. (U, L) and (D, R). 5. First, eliminate R as it is strictly dominated by M for player. Second, eliminate M as it is strictly
More informationGame Theory: Global Games. Christoph Schottmüller
Game Theory: Global Games Christoph Schottmüller 1 / 20 Outline 1 Global Games: Stag Hunt 2 An investment example 3 Revision questions and exercises 2 / 20 Stag Hunt Example H2 S2 H1 3,3 3,0 S1 0,3 4,4
More informationEcon 414 Midterm Exam
Econ 44 Midterm Exam Name: There are three questions taken from the material covered so far in the course. All questions are equally weighted. If you have a question, please raise your hand and I will
More informationEcon 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.
Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013. Do not turn the page until instructed to. Do not forget to write Problems 1 in the first Blue Book and Problems 2, 3 and 4 in the second Blue Book. 1 Econ 101A Final
More information6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts
6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts Asu Ozdaglar MIT February 9, 2010 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria
More informationFinitely repeated simultaneous move game.
Finitely repeated simultaneous move game. Consider a normal form game (simultaneous move game) Γ N which is played repeatedly for a finite (T )number of times. The normal form game which is played repeatedly
More informationIntroduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)
Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4) Outline: Modeling by means of games Normal form games Dominant strategies; dominated strategies,
More informationCMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 16. Behavioral vs. Mixed Strategies
CMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 16. Behavioral vs. Mixed Strategies Mohammad T. Hajiaghayi University of Maryland Behavioral Strategies In imperfect-information extensive-form games, we can define
More informationNotes for Section: Week 4
Economics 160 Professor Steven Tadelis Stanford University Spring Quarter, 2004 Notes for Section: Week 4 Notes prepared by Paul Riskind (pnr@stanford.edu). spot errors or have questions about these notes.
More informationNotes for Section: Week 7
Economics 160 Professor Steven Tadelis Stanford University Spring Quarter, 004 Notes for Section: Week 7 Notes prepared by Paul Riskind (pnr@stanford.edu). spot errors or have questions about these notes.
More informationECO 5341 (Section 2) Spring 2016 Midterm March 24th 2016 Total Points: 100
Name:... ECO 5341 (Section 2) Spring 2016 Midterm March 24th 2016 Total Points: 100 For full credit, please be formal, precise, concise and tidy. If your answer is illegible and not well organized, if
More informationUniversity of Hong Kong ECON6036 Stephen Chiu. Extensive Games with Perfect Information II. Outline
University of Hong Kong ECON6036 Stephen Chiu Extensive Games with Perfect Information II 1 Outline Interpretation of strategy Backward induction One stage deviation principle Rubinstein alternative bargaining
More informationFDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.
FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.) Hints for Problem Set 2 1. Consider a zero-sum game, where
More informationEcon 711 Final Solutions
Econ 711 Final Solutions April 24, 2015 1.1 For all periods, play Cc if history is Cc for all prior periods. If not, play Dd. Payoffs for 2 cooperating on the equilibrium path are optimal for and deviating
More informationMicroeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5
Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO Oct. 23, 2015 Administrative Stuff Homework 2 is due next week. Due to the change in material covered, I have decided to change the grading system
More informationM.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II. These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term. 1
M.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term.. Private Provision of Public Good. Consider the following public good game:
More informationRationalizable Strategies
Rationalizable Strategies Carlos Hurtado Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hrtdmrt2@illinois.edu Jun 1st, 2015 C. Hurtado (UIUC - Economics) Game Theory On the Agenda 1
More informationEconomics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002
Economics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002 P1. Consider the following game. There are two piles of matches and two players. The game starts with Player 1 and thereafter the players
More informationMA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE
MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE Answers to Problem Set [] In part (i), proceed as follows. Suppose that we are doing 2 s best response to. Let p be probability that player plays U. Now if player 2 chooses
More information1 R. 2 l r 1 1 l2 r 2
4. Game Theory Midterm I Instructions. This is an open book exam; you can use any written material. You have one hour and 0 minutes. Each question is 35 points. Good luck!. Consider the following game
More informationEC 308 Question Set # 1
EC 308 Question Set #. Consider the following game: There are 2 steps. In Step Player chooses between throwing unit of his own payoff (strategy T) or not (strategy N). Observing his action in Step 2 they
More informationLecture 6 Dynamic games with imperfect information
Lecture 6 Dynamic games with imperfect information Backward Induction in dynamic games of imperfect information We start at the end of the trees first find the Nash equilibrium (NE) of the last subgame
More informationMA300.2 Game Theory 2005, LSE
MA300.2 Game Theory 2005, LSE Answers to Problem Set 2 [1] (a) This is standard (we have even done it in class). The one-shot Cournot outputs can be computed to be A/3, while the payoff to each firm can
More informationAnswers to Problem Set 4
Answers to Problem Set 4 Economics 703 Spring 016 1. a) The monopolist facing no threat of entry will pick the first cost function. To see this, calculate profits with each one. With the first cost function,
More informationFrancesco Nava Microeconomic Principles II EC202 Lent Term 2010
Answer Key Problem Set 1 Francesco Nava Microeconomic Principles II EC202 Lent Term 2010 Please give your answers to your class teacher by Friday of week 6 LT. If you not to hand in at your class, make
More informationIn the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Graduate School of Management and Economics
In the Name of God Sharif University of Technology Graduate School of Management and Economics Microeconomics (for MBA students) 44111 (1393-94 1 st term) - Group 2 Dr. S. Farshad Fatemi Game Theory Game:
More informationFinal Examination December 14, Economics 5010 AF3.0 : Applied Microeconomics. time=2.5 hours
YORK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Graduate Studies Final Examination December 14, 2010 Economics 5010 AF3.0 : Applied Microeconomics S. Bucovetsky time=2.5 hours Do any 6 of the following 10 questions. All count
More informationMidterm #2 EconS 527 [November 7 th, 2016]
Midterm # EconS 57 [November 7 th, 16] Question #1 [ points]. Consider an individual with a separable utility function over goods u(x) = α i ln x i i=1 where i=1 α i = 1 and α i > for every good i. Assume
More informationPreliminary Notions in Game Theory
Chapter 7 Preliminary Notions in Game Theory I assume that you recall the basic solution concepts, namely Nash Equilibrium, Bayesian Nash Equilibrium, Subgame-Perfect Equilibrium, and Perfect Bayesian
More informationGame Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I
Game Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I Homework 1, due in recitation on 10/18/2018. 1. Consider the following strategic game: player 1/player 2 L R U 1,1 0,0 D 0,0 3,2 Any NE can be
More informationSpring 2017 Final Exam
Spring 07 Final Exam ECONS : Strategy and Game Theory Tuesday May, :0 PM - 5:0 PM irections : Complete 5 of the 6 questions on the exam. You will have a minimum of hours to complete this final exam. No
More informationNot 0,4 2,1. i. Show there is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium where player A chooses to play, player A chooses L, and player B chooses L.
Econ 400, Final Exam Name: There are three questions taken from the material covered so far in the course. ll questions are equally weighted. If you have a question, please raise your hand and I will come
More informationUniversity at Albany, State University of New York Department of Economics Ph.D. Preliminary Examination in Microeconomics, June 20, 2017
University at Albany, State University of New York Department of Economics Ph.D. Preliminary Examination in Microeconomics, June 0, 017 Instructions: Answer any three of the four numbered problems. Justify
More informationGame Theory. Important Instructions
Prof. Dr. Anke Gerber Game Theory 2. Exam Summer Term 2012 Important Instructions 1. There are 90 points on this 90 minutes exam. 2. You are not allowed to use any material (books, lecture notes etc.).
More informationGame Theory and Economics Prof. Dr. Debarshi Das Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati.
Game Theory and Economics Prof. Dr. Debarshi Das Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati. Module No. # 06 Illustrations of Extensive Games and Nash Equilibrium
More informationSimon Fraser University Spring 2014
Simon Fraser University Spring 2014 Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution This brief solution guide does not have the explanations necessary for full marks. NE = Nash equilibrium, SPE = subgame perfect equilibrium,
More informationEconomic Management Strategy: Hwrk 1. 1 Simultaneous-Move Game Theory Questions.
Economic Management Strategy: Hwrk 1 1 Simultaneous-Move Game Theory Questions. 1.1 Chicken Lee and Spike want to see who is the bravest. To do so, they play a game called chicken. (Readers, don t try
More informationECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games
University of Illinois Fall 2018 ECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games Due: Tuesday, Sept. 11, at beginning of class Reading: Course notes, Sections 1.1-1.4 1. [A random
More informationEconS 424 Strategy and Game Theory. Homework #5 Answer Key
EconS 44 Strategy and Game Theory Homework #5 Answer Key Exercise #1 Collusion among N doctors Consider an infinitely repeated game, in which there are nn 3 doctors, who have created a partnership. In
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions 1. (45 points) Consider the following normal form game played by Bruce and Sheila: L Sheila R T 1, 0 3, 3 Bruce M 1, x 0, 0 B 0, 0 4, 1 (a) Suppose
More informationEcon 210, Final, Fall 2015.
Econ 210, Final, Fall 2015. Prof. Guse, W & L University Instructions. You have 3 hours to complete the exam. You will answer questions worth a total of 90 points. Please write all of your responses on
More information14.12 Game Theory Midterm II 11/15/ Compute all the subgame perfect equilibria in pure strategies for the following game:
4. Game Theory Midterm II /5/7 Prof. Muhamet Yildiz Instructions. This is an open book exam; you can use any written material. You have one hour and minutes. Each question is 5 points. Good luck!. Compute
More informationGame Theory Notes: Examples of Games with Dominant Strategy Equilibrium or Nash Equilibrium
Game Theory Notes: Examples of Games with Dominant Strategy Equilibrium or Nash Equilibrium Below are two different games. The first game has a dominant strategy equilibrium. The second game has two Nash
More informationIterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium
Chapter 11 Iterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium In the previous chapter we examined simultaneous move games in which each player had a dominant strategy; the Prisoner s Dilemma game was one example.
More informationEconS 424 Strategy and Game Theory. Homework #5 Answer Key
EconS 44 Strategy and Game Theory Homework #5 Answer Key Exercise #1 Collusion among N doctors Consider an infinitely repeated game, in which there are nn 3 doctors, who have created a partnership. In
More informationPrisoner s dilemma with T = 1
REPEATED GAMES Overview Context: players (e.g., firms) interact with each other on an ongoing basis Concepts: repeated games, grim strategies Economic principle: repetition helps enforcing otherwise unenforceable
More informationGame Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Repeated Games
Game Theory Wolfgang Frimmel Repeated Games 1 / 41 Recap: SPNE The solution concept for dynamic games with complete information is the subgame perfect Nash Equilibrium (SPNE) Selten (1965): A strategy
More informationECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves
University of Illinois Spring 01 ECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves Due: Reading: Thursday, April 11 at beginning of class
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 9
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 9 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO May 22, 2015 Announcements HW #3 is due next week. Ch. 6.1: Ultimatum Game This is a simple game that can model a very simplified
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 Modelling Dynamics Up until now, our games have lacked any sort of dynamic aspect We have assumed that all players make decisions at the same time Or at least no
More informationFollow the Leader I has three pure strategy Nash equilibria of which only one is reasonable.
February 3, 2014 Eric Rasmusen, Erasmuse@indiana.edu. Http://www.rasmusen.org Follow the Leader I has three pure strategy Nash equilibria of which only one is reasonable. Equilibrium Strategies Outcome
More informationExercises Solutions: Oligopoly
Exercises Solutions: Oligopoly Exercise - Quantity competition 1 Take firm 1 s perspective Total revenue is R(q 1 = (4 q 1 q q 1 and, hence, marginal revenue is MR 1 (q 1 = 4 q 1 q Marginal cost is MC
More informationPlayer 2 H T T -1,1 1, -1
1 1 Question 1 Answer 1.1 Q1.a In a two-player matrix game, the process of iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies will always lead to a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium. Answer: False, In
More informationGame Theory: Additional Exercises
Game Theory: Additional Exercises Problem 1. Consider the following scenario. Players 1 and 2 compete in an auction for a valuable object, for example a painting. Each player writes a bid in a sealed envelope,
More informationECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY MIDTERM EXAM #2 ANSWER KEY
ECONS 44 STRATEGY AND GAE THEORY IDTER EXA # ANSWER KEY Exercise #1. Hawk-Dove game. Consider the following payoff matrix representing the Hawk-Dove game. Intuitively, Players 1 and compete for a resource,
More informationOther Regarding Preferences
Other Regarding Preferences Mark Dean Lecture Notes for Spring 015 Behavioral Economics - Brown University 1 Lecture 1 We are now going to introduce two models of other regarding preferences, and think
More informationEco AS , J. Sandford, spring 2019 March 9, Midterm answers
Midterm answers Instructions: You may use a calculator and scratch paper, but no other resources. In particular, you may not discuss the exam with anyone other than the instructor, and you may not access
More informationMath 152: Applicable Mathematics and Computing
Math 152: Applicable Mathematics and Computing May 22, 2017 May 22, 2017 1 / 19 Bertrand Duopoly: Undifferentiated Products Game (Bertrand) Firm and Firm produce identical products. Each firm simultaneously
More informationMath 135: Answers to Practice Problems
Math 35: Answers to Practice Problems Answers to problems from the textbook: Many of the problems from the textbook have answers in the back of the book. Here are the answers to the problems that don t
More informationChapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria, reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem
Chapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem Nash equilibrium: The concept of Nash equilibrium can be extended in a natural manner to the mixed strategies
More informationAdvanced Micro 1 Lecture 14: Dynamic Games Equilibrium Concepts
Advanced Micro 1 Lecture 14: Dynamic Games quilibrium Concepts Nicolas Schutz Nicolas Schutz Dynamic Games: quilibrium Concepts 1 / 79 Plan 1 Nash equilibrium and the normal form 2 Subgame-perfect equilibrium
More informationMATH 4321 Game Theory Solution to Homework Two
MATH 321 Game Theory Solution to Homework Two Course Instructor: Prof. Y.K. Kwok 1. (a) Suppose that an iterated dominance equilibrium s is not a Nash equilibrium, then there exists s i of some player
More informationToday. Applications of NE and SPNE Auctions English Auction Second-Price Sealed-Bid Auction First-Price Sealed-Bid Auction
Today Applications of NE and SPNE Auctions English Auction Second-Price Sealed-Bid Auction First-Price Sealed-Bid Auction 2 / 26 Auctions Used to allocate: Art Government bonds Radio spectrum Forms: Sequential
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV
GAME THEORY SOLUTION SET 1 WINTER 018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction For suggested solution to problem 4, last year s suggested solutions by Tsz-Ning Wong were used who I think used suggested
More informationAgenda. Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection
Game Theory 1 Agenda Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection 2 Game Theory Game theory is the study of a set of tools that
More informationECON Microeconomics II IRYNA DUDNYK. Auctions.
Auctions. What is an auction? When and whhy do we need auctions? Auction is a mechanism of allocating a particular object at a certain price. Allocating part concerns who will get the object and the price
More informationSimon Fraser University Fall Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM
Simon Fraser University Fall 2015 Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM NE = Nash equilibrium, SPE = subgame perfect equilibrium, PBE = perfect
More informationDynamic Games. Econ 400. University of Notre Dame. Econ 400 (ND) Dynamic Games 1 / 18
Dynamic Games Econ 400 University of Notre Dame Econ 400 (ND) Dynamic Games 1 / 18 Dynamic Games A dynamic game of complete information is: A set of players, i = 1,2,...,N A payoff function for each player
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 22 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY Correlated Strategies and Correlated
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India August 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India August 2012 Chapter 6: Mixed Strategies and Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibrium
More informationRepeated Games. Econ 400. University of Notre Dame. Econ 400 (ND) Repeated Games 1 / 48
Repeated Games Econ 400 University of Notre Dame Econ 400 (ND) Repeated Games 1 / 48 Relationships and Long-Lived Institutions Business (and personal) relationships: Being caught cheating leads to punishment
More informationEcon 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.
Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013. Do not turn the page until instructed to. Do not forget to write Problems 1 in the first Blue Book and Problems 2, 3 and 4 in the second Blue Book. 1 Econ 101A Final
More information1 x i c i if x 1 +x 2 > 0 u i (x 1,x 2 ) = 0 if x 1 +x 2 = 0
Game Theory - Midterm Examination, Date: ctober 14, 017 Total marks: 30 Duration: 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM Note: Answer all questions clearly using pen. Please avoid unnecessary discussions. In all questions,
More informationName. FINAL EXAM, Econ 171, March, 2015
Name FINAL EXAM, Econ 171, March, 2015 There are 9 questions. Answer any 8 of them. Good luck! Remember, you only need to answer 8 questions Problem 1. (True or False) If a player has a dominant strategy
More informationCS711 Game Theory and Mechanism Design
CS711 Game Theory and Mechanism Design Problem Set 1 August 13, 2018 Que 1. [Easy] William and Henry are participants in a televised game show, seated in separate booths with no possibility of communicating
More informationChapter 6: Supply and Demand with Income in the Form of Endowments
Chapter 6: Supply and Demand with Income in the Form of Endowments 6.1: Introduction This chapter and the next contain almost identical analyses concerning the supply and demand implied by different kinds
More information