arxiv: v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 22 Feb 2018

Transcription

1 When and how much the altrusm mpacts your prvleged nformaton? Proposng a new paradgm n game theory: The boxers game arxv: v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 22 Feb 2018 Roberto da Slva 1, Henrque. Fernandes 2 1 Insttuto de Físca, Unversdade Federal do Ro Grande do Sul, v. ento Gonçalves, CEP , Porto legre, Ro Grande do Sul, razl 2 Insttuto de Cêncas Exatas, Unversdade Federal de Goás, Regonal Jataí, R 364, km 192, CEP , Jataí, Goás, razl bstract In ths work, we proposed a new N-person game n whch the players can bet on two optons, for example represented by two boxers. Some of the players have prvleged nformaton about the boxers and part of them can provde ths nformaton to unnformed players. However, ths nformaton may be true f the nformed player s altrust or false f he s selfsh. So, n ths game, the players are dvded n three categores: nformed and altrust players, nformed and selfsh players, and unnformed players. y consderng the matchngs (N/2 dstnct pars of randomly chosen players) and that the payoff of the wnnng group follows aspects captured from two mportant games, the publc goods game and mnorty game, we showed quanttatvely and qualtatvely how the altrusm can mpact on the prvleged nformaton. We localzed analytcally the regons of postve payoffs whch were corroborated by numercal smulatons performed for all values of nformaton and altrusm denstes gven that we know the nformaton level of the nformed players. Fnally, n an evolutonary verson of the game,we showed that the gan of the nformed players can get worse f we adopted the followng procedure: the players ncrease ther nvestment for stuatons of postve payoffs, and decrease ther nvestment when negatve payoffs occur. 1. Introducton Just over half a century ago, J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern [1] probably had no dea of the extent that ther work would have, not only on applcatons n the economc behavour but also n several areas of bology, ecology, and manly n the evolutonary theory of the speces [2] culmnatng n the replcator dynamcs [3, 4] and ts branches (see, for example, the Refs. [5, 6]). In fact, the game theory stll perssts as an mportant theory of mathematcal models whch studes the choces of optmal decsons under conflct or combat condtons. However, long before the evolutonary aspects were studed n ths context, the economcal applcatons were the prmordal motvatons of ths theory, and leveraged the constructon of sutable concepts as Nash equlbrum, that contemplates the exstence of an equlbrum of mxed strateges n non-cooperatve games [7]. The dea was very smple but brllant: n such equlbrum condton, when there are two or more players, no player wll gan by unlaterally changng ts strategy. J. Nash was beyond and extended the concept to cooperatve games by performng a reducton to non-cooperatve games. Hs Preprnt submtted to Elsever February 23, 2018

2 mportant works culmnated n the Nobel Memoral Prze n Economc Scences jontly to R. Selten and J. Harsany [8]. n mportant concept n game theory arses when the game can be repeated numerous tmes. Ths game s sometmes referred n lterature as dynamc game, or smply repeated game, n whch the teraton effects can be understood under two dfferent theores: the determnstc and stochastc game theores. One more nterestng knd of dynamc game theory s one that covers the stochastc case, and was ntroduced and formalzed by Shapley n 1953 [9, 10, 11]. Lookng n the other drecton, games where the proft depends on the number of nvestors have a drect smlarty wth the realty n the busness world. Here, the paradgmatc El farol bar problem (EFP), whch s a smple model that shows how (selfsh) players cooperate wth each other n the absence of communcaton, arses as an mportant startng pont [12]. In that problem, a set of people must decde f they go to a bar or stay at home. If they decde to go out and the bar s too crowded, they probably wll not have a funny nght and stay at home would be more nterestng. They wll have (or not have) a funny nght accordng to a threshold on the number of people n the bar. If less than a fracton (a threshold) x of the populaton decde to go to the bar, they wll have a better tme than ones whch decded to reman n ther houses. On the other hand, f more than a fracton x of the populaton go to the bar, they wll have bad tmes when compared wth the comfort of ther homes. Two physcsts saw the potental of ths dea, and a formalzaton of the EFP was gven by Challet and Zhang [13] n 1997, the so-called Mnorty Game (MG) whch was proposed as a rough model to descrbe the prce fluctuaton of stock markets. In that game, an odd number of players have to choose one of two optons ndependently at each turn. The players who end up on the mnorty sde wn the game. Followng ths lne, another multple player game (strongly based on expermental economcs of the publc goods), s the publc goods game (PGG). In that game, multple players can contrbute to a common fund wth or wthout the presence of communcaton n order to obtan benefts, and all money collected s doubled, or trplcate, or smply corrected accordng to some multplcatve factor. Ths game has been studed n many contexts by ncludng optonal partcpaton obtanng a fxed ncome by optng not to nvest n the publc good, spatal dffuson effects and many other ngredents, both when studyng many publc goods games [14, 15, 16, 17] and when consderng only one publc good (see, for example, [18, 19, 20, 21]). Dfferently from MG where the payoffs of players are nversely proportonal to the number of persons whch choose the same group, n PGG the payoff depends on how many persons nvest n the fund. The mportant feature of the MG s the absence of communcaton and nose. However, n general, real 2

3 stuatons have propertes such as msnformaton, nose, selfshness, altrusm, and some of these ngredents can coexst n more complex scenaros. In ths work, we propose a new game that captures some aspects of both PGG and MG by takng nto account some of those propertes as well as multplayer games n order to show how the altrusm can affect the nformaton of a group and change ther payoffs. However, we consder very dfferent constrants, wth the payoffs beng determned probablstcally and accordng to the nformaton (and ts propagaton) controlled only by some players. We call t the boxers game, snce t was partly based on the dea of the payoffs obtaned by gamblers n boxng matches. However, the motvatons can be easly extended to nclude, for nstance, horse-race or even gamblng on the stock exchange, or even more general stuatons. The paper s organzed as follows: In the next secton, we formulate the model. In Sec. 3, we present our man results whch are separated n two parts. The frst one consders the statc, or fxed, nvestments and the samplng of payoffs are analysed through Monte Carlo (MC) smulatons and analytcal results. The second part of our results s related to the dynamc nvestments n whch a smple evolutonary aspect of the game, based on reacton of the players accordng to ther proft, s studed va MC smulatons. Fnally, our summares and conclusons are presented n Sec The model In ths approach, we consder a n-person game n a scenaro where each player must choose between two boxers (groups): or. Some players (wth densty ρ) know that the boxer defeats the boxer wth probablty p > 1/2 (denoted as ) gven, for example, ther sklls. Therefore, boxer defeats boxer (denoted as ) wth probablty 1 p q such that q s the draw probablty. Here, t s mportant to menton that the nformaton s ncomplete snce p s not exactly equal to 1 (n ths case q should be necessarly equal to 0). The msnformaton, whch has an mportant role n the payoff of the players, was frstly formalzed by the Nobel prze laureate n Economc Scences, John C. Harsany [22]. However, we propose a dfferent approach: by consderng the smlartes wth a boxng match, we establsh that the payoff of the player n a group or depends on some features consderng some protocols that remember both PGG and MG. So, we set up three mportant fundamentals that govern our game: 1. MG protocol: n the case of vctory, the payoff of the players (wnners) depends on how many persons have bet n the losng group; 2. PGG protocol: the proft obtaned for the group must be dvded equally among the players of that group; 3

4 3. The gan s proportonal to the nvested amount. y denotng m () as the payoff of the -th player that has chosen the group, whch, wthout loss of generalty, s the group where a number of people have prvleged nformaton ( wth probablty p > 1/2), we have and naturally m () = m () = s () n =1 s () n =1 s () s () wth probablty p wth probablty 1 p q 0 elsewhere s () n =1 s () n =1 s () s () wth probablty 1 p q wth probablty p 0 elsewhere The reader should observe that the return, n case of a wn, s the sum of the nvestment of all players n the loosng group multpled by a factor that dstrbutes equally the gan between the partcpants of the wnnng group: α, = s (,) / n, =1 s(,) for all players, the payoff for each player s α, = 1/n,.. It s mportant to menton that for equal nvestments, s (,) = s, Ths game s a good example of multple zero-sum game, snce the sum of payoff of the players n a match s 0, whch means that f one or more players gan a certan amount, the other ones lose ths same amout,.e., m () = m ( j) (3) j s a partton and the sequences of bets are gven, respectvely, by {n,n }, s () 1,...,s() n and s () 1,...,s() n, a smple calculaton can be performed to provde us the expected payoff of the th player: and [ E [ E m () m () ] ] = ps () n =1 s() n =1 s() = (1 p q)s () n =1 s() (1) (2) (1 p q)s () (4) n =1 s() ps () (5) In ths regard, t s mportant to thnk of a mathematcal pont of vew wthout takng nto consderaton the complex nteracton that exsts among players and how some of them (nρ) can use ther prvleged { } nformaton to make money. The problem s: gvng the partton {n,n } and the bets s () n { } and =1 n condtoned to ths partton, how to compute the average payoff? s () =1 For example, f, by hypothess, we know the probablty dstrbuton Pr(n, ) that determnes how many 4

5 ndvduals choose the group () as well as the condtonal f (s, ) probablty dstrbuton functon (pdf) that governs the probablty of a player whch nvests n the group () to perform a proposal between s and s + ds, we would have the average payoffs of the ndvduals n the groups and gven, respectvely, by m = p s () n (1 p q) s () (6) n m = (1 p q) s () n p s () (7) n where n, = n n, =0 n, Pr(n, ) and s, = 0 s f (s,)ds. t ths pont, the nteractons among players, msnformaton, and other relevant features, should lead to more exctng studes for ths game snce no ndcaton produces the followng dstrbutons: Pr(n, ) and f (s,). So, once we showed that our very dfferent approach avods the ayesan formalsm of the ncomplete nformaton game theory [22], now we are able to defne the dynamcs for ths complex scenaro by presentng how the players propagate ther prvleged nformaton. Frst, n real stuatons the nformaton can be propagated wth good or bad ntentons. mong the players that know the bas n a group (there are n I = ρn players wth prvleged nformaton), a fracton α of them propagate ths nformaton wth good ntenton (.e., sayng the truth). On the other hand, there are (1 α)ρn players whch only wsh to maxmze ther proft (sncerty s not ther man feature) and wll nfluence all the other players to nvest n the other group. In addton, (1 ρ)n players do not know the chances of each group (or of the correspondng boxer) and therefore, depend on the nformaton from the other players. So, we have a model wth three types of players: 1. I (Informed and altrust players) They know the probablty p > 1/2 of a group wnnng and propagate ths nformaton; 2. IS (Informed and selfsh players) They know the probablty p > 1/2 of a group wnnng but suggests to the msnformed players to nvest ther contrbuton n the opposng group lyng to them; 3. U (unnformed players) They have no nformaton and depend on the nformaton gven by the two frst groups. In addton, the model has four parameters: p, q, ρ, and α, and the proft n each round s gven by Eqs. (1) and (2). Now let us defne the dynamcs of the game by supposng (wthout loss of generalty) that p > 1/2 s 5

6 Players I versus I ( or S) U versus U I versus U IS versus U Decson oth players go to the group Each player choose a group wth probablty 1/2 oth players go to the group The IS player goes to the group and the U player goes to the group Table 1: Possble decsons accordng to the dfferent encounters among the players the probablty of the group defeats the group, as shown n Table 1. The group s composed by part of the nformed players as well as a fracton of unnformed ones that are convnced by the nformed altrust players to nvest n ths group and half of unnformed players whch nteract wth other unnformed players. On the other hand, the group conssts of unnformed players convnced by the nformed selfsh ones to nvest n t and the other half of unnformed players whch fnd other unnformed players. 3. Results Now we present our man results. In the next subsecton we present the most of our results, whch s an exploraton of the man propertes of the game consderng that all players nvest the same quantty along the tme: s 1 = s 2 =... = s n = s, whch remans fxed over the dfferent teratons of the game. In our numercal approach, we consder n total n = 1000 dfferent players and s s made equal to 1. In the followng subsecton, we consder an nterestng evolutonary aspect of the game, based on reactons of the players accordng to ther gan or loss, so the values s (t), evolve over tme but s (t = 0) = 1, for all players: = 1,2,...,n Results I: Samplng and probablty theory We frst consder a more natural stuaton where all players nvest the same quantty, s 1 = s 2 =... = s n = s n every teraton of the game. In ths case, we have m = n n p (1 p q) m = (1 p q) n n p 6

7 ccordng to Table 1, along wth the fracton of players, we have n = Nρ + (1 ρ)αρn (1 ρ)2 N n = (1 ρ)(1 α)ρn (1 ρ)2 N where ρ s the densty of nformed players, α s the densty of altrust nformed players, and n + n = N,.e., the number of players s held constant. and The rate n /n yelds Thus we can wrte n = f (α,ρ) = ρ + (1 ρ)αρ (1 ρ)2 n (1 ρ)(1 α)ρ (1 ρ)2 m = (1 ρ)(1 α)ρ (1 ρ)2 ρ + (1 ρ)αρ + 1 p (1 p q) (8) 2 (1 ρ)2 m = ρ + (1 ρ)αρ (1 ρ)2 (1 ρ)(1 α)ρ + 1 (1 p q) p (9) 2 (1 ρ)2 It s nterestng to observe that for m > 0,.e., the nformed players have proft n average. Ths stuaton leads to p > p c = (1 q) ρ + (1 ρ)αρ (1 ρ)2 ρ + (1 ρ) 2 + (1 ρ) Ths means that p c s the mnmum nformaton level necessary to obtan proft. nother alternatve s to thnk of the level of nformaton p (probablty of the favourte group to wn) and the densty of nformed players ρ. s we have them n hand, the altrusm level requred to obtan proft s then gven by (10) α > α c = 2p (1 q)(1 + ρ2 ) 2(1 q)ρ(1 ρ) (11) We can consder applcatons where q > 0, and ths deserves a future nvestgaton. ut for the sake of smplcty, by thnkng n boxers, a draw s very rare, thus we make q = 0 for all the results obtaned from here n ths work. In ths work, we perform numercal smulatons based on turns. One turn s averaged over N run dfferent tme seres correspondng to ndependent runs. Each tme seres corresponds to a sequence of teratons (rounds). In each round, N/2 pars of players are randomly matched and all players necessarly partcpate once (such as performng a matchng n a graph). In each round, the players take a decson accordng to the 7

8 nformaton and nature of ther partners determned by the Table 1. So, for each turn t, the average payoff of bettors n the group (), calculated va MC smulatons, s obtaned by a general formulae: 1 payo f f () (t) = n () N run n () N run payo f f () (, j,t) =1 j=1 For fxed values of t and j, one has that payo f f () (, j,t) s the same for all = 1,2,3...,n (),.e., there s no dfference among the payoffs of the dfferent players n same group, n the same run ( j) of the same turn (t), snce the nvestments n ths verson of the game are fxed and made equal to 1 for all players durng all the teratons. However, as shown n the next subsecton, ths s not the truth when the reacton of the players to ther proft s taken nto consderaton. Fgure 1 shows the payoffs obtaned by MC smulatons. These estmates are compared wth our theoretcal result predcted by Eqs. (8) and (9). In Fgs. 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), we show the results for the average payoff of players that have bet n and, for N run = 1, 3, 10, and 300, respectvely. We can observe a good agreement between our numercal and theoretcal predctons. We complete our analyss wth the plot shown n Fg. 1 (e) whch shows the average payoff of the nformed and unformed players. It s mportant to observe that all nformed players bet n the group (or boxer), but not all player that bets n s an nformed player accordng to our rules. On the other hand every, player that bets n the group s necessarly an unnformed player. Of course, we do not observe dfference between the average payoff of the group formed by bettors n the group and the group formed by nformed players, however we have that average payoff of the unformed players group even beng greater than that of the nformed players group, s smaller than the group formed by the unnformed players that bet n (average over unnformed players condtoned to the group ). Ths shows that unnformed players whch goes to the group are the responsble for ths decrease or for gettng worse the average of the unnformed players from a general pont of vew. y lookng nto the Fg. 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d), t turns nterestng to understand the nfluence of N run n our results, or, n other words, we are wonderng how the central lmt theorem s workng here. When consderng small values of N run, we have that the payoff swtch between two dfferent values. s N run enlarges, the superposton among dfferent runs generates a contnuous dstrbuton of payoffs whch we expect to be a gaussan dstrbuton of payoffs over the dfferent turns. Fgure 2 shows the dstrbuton of payoff over the turns. The plots (a), (b), and (c) show the payoff frequences for dfferent values of N run for the bettors n the groups and. We can observe a mxng dstrbuton composed by a gaussan peak and a delta peak mgratng to a unque gaussan dstrbuton 8

9 payoff (c) N 0.8 run = 10 (d) N run = (a) N run =1 1.5 (b) N run = 3 (e) N run = turn Informed Unnformed Fgure 1: Payoffs for dfferent turns of the groups (black ponts) and (red ponts) for a gven set of parameters. The straght horzontal lnes (average results) correspond to our theoretcal predctons, Eqs. (8) and (9). We analyze turns composed by dfferent number of runs, N run as can be seen n the plots (a), (b), (c), and (d). The nosy results around these lnes correspond to the MC smulatons. good agreement can be observed for N run = 300 runs. Plot (e) shows the payoffs for dfferent turns of the nformed players (whch s equal to the payoffs of all players n ) (dark blue lne) and also shows the payoffs of the unnformed players when they are not condtoned only to the group (lght blue lne),.e., the payoff s averaged over all unnformed players. Ths last one s smaller than the case where unnformed players are averaged condtoned to the group (see plot (d)). n both cases: for bettors n and (n mono-log scale) as N run enlarges. The mx dstrbuton occurs because for N run = 1, each player loses or gans one unt wth hs group dvdng the quantty that changes along dfferent rounds, generatng the Gaussan dstrbuton. However t s nterestng to observe that the convergence occurs mgratng from ths b-modal dstrbuton, passng by a mult-modal dstrbuton (see for example N run = 10) untl that such modes are fused n a unque gaussan dstrbuton. The central lmt theorem can also be observed by consderng the standard devatons over the dfferent turns, calculated as: N 1 turns ( ) 2, σ(payo f f () ) = (N turns 1) payo f f (t) payo f f (12) t=1 9

10 f(payoff) N run = 1 f(payoff) N run = payoff payoff f(payoff) N run = 300 payoff) payoff N run Fgure 2: Plots (a), (b), and (c) show the dstrbuton of payoff for dfferent values of N run for the bettors n the groups and. We can observe a mxng dstrbuton composed by a gaussan peak and a delta peak whch mgrates to a unque gaussan dstrbuton n both cases for bettors n and (n mono-log scale). Plot (d) shows the varance of payoff over dfferent turns as functon of N run by llustratng the expected fttng σ(payo f f ) N 1/2 run. where t s expected that σ(payo f f () ) Nrun 1/2. s can be seen n Fg. 2 (d), our results are n complete agreement wth each other. Wth ths result, we fnsh our analyss about samplng and agreement between MC smulatons and theory. Now, we explore the relatonshp between altrusm and nformaton n ths game. Snce the altrusm nfluences the nformaton, we are wonderng how the payoff vary for all possble values of nformaton, ρ, and altrusm, α for a fxed value of p, for nstance, p = 0.8. Fgure 3 shows the payoff of players of the group whereas ths s the group of nformed players. We can observe so-payoff curves whch depend on values of ρ and α. From ths fgure, one can observe that for low denstes of nformed players there exst only altrust players wth postve payoff snce ths s a proftable scenaro,.e., hgh-level nformaton: p = 0.8. However, for hgh densty of nformed players, the pure altrusm can brng strong damages for the 10

11 Fgure 3: MC smulatons for the payoff of the group (group of the nformed players) by consderng all possble values of nformaton and altrusm for p = 0.8. group and the nformaton s not a trump for the game. In ths case, t s nterestng to obtan the mnmal altrusm level requred to reach a postve payoff n the scenaro predcted by Eq. (11). In Fg. 4, we show the dagram for all possble values of ρ and α for p = 0.8. The postve (gray) and negatve (purple) payoff regons predcted by MC smulatons are regons where each set (ρ,α) yelds a proft or loss for the players, respectvely. The contnuous curve (n black) shows the theoretcal predcton of the threshold between the proft and loss obtaned by Eq. (11). One can observe a perfect agreement between the smulatons and our analytcal approach. Fnally, we focus our attenton on the nfluence of the nformaton level (p) on the transton curves α c versus ρ accordng to Eq. (11). Fgure 5 shows α c ρ for dfferent values of p. s p ncreases, we observe the evoluton of the curves α c ρ. It s nterestng to observe that for ρ > ρ c = (2p 1) 1/2 (ths value s obtaned by makng α c = 0 n Eq. (11), even for a populaton entrely formed by non-altrust players, the 11

12 proft loss Fgure 4: Payoff dagram for p = 0.8. The dagram was obtaned from MC smulatons whle the contnuous curve shows the theoretcal result predcted by Eq. (11). elow the curve we have a postve payoff whereas above t we have a negatve payoff. payoff s always negatve. So, our work shows that n a populaton wth people that possess some prvleged nformaton, the payoff of the nformed players s deeply changed by the altrusm level. In addton, there s a crtcal altrusm level whch separates the proft from the loss n the payoff of the players. Our analytcal results are n complete agreement wth MC smulatons Some evolutonary aspects: reactve boxers game Here, we study a smple varaton of the game where players may change ther nvestment accordng to ther results. The evoluton s not exactly as that one conventonally consdered n game theory where the strateges are coped accordng to, for nstance, the best payoff n the exact sense of Darwnan evolutonary theory. In the rght case of ths paper, we propose a smple evolutonary dynamcs where the player only tres to adjust hs nvestment accordng to hs personal losses or gans from a smlar way as that used n the ultmatum game studed n Ref. [23] or n the publc goods game (see for example [18, 20, 21]). ascally, 12

13 c Fgure 5: Plots of α c ρ, for dfferent values of p, predcted by Eq. (11). From the left to the rght, we show curves whch correspond to the followng values of p: 0.51, 0.52, 0.53, 0.54, 0.55, 0.60, 0.70, 0.80, and one consders a parameter ε > 0 used to allow the players to make small adjustments dependng on ther payoff. If a player has nvested s ( j) at turn j of a certan run, and hs payoff s postve, then hs nvestment s ncreased n the next round: s ( j + 1) = s ( j) + ε. However, f the payoff s negatve the nvestment s decreased n the next round: s ( j + 1) = s ( j) ε. So, n ths approach, we are able to analyse how the dynamcal evoluton of the nvestments affects the wealth of the players. For ths partcular analyss t s convenent to consder the cumulatve wealth defned as W(t) = t τ=1 payo f f (τ) and, manly, the average gan per turn: g(t) = 1 t W(t) whch measures the real average gan. We add these ngredents to our prevous study and repeat the MC smulatons to calculate g(t) and ts standard devaton σ(g)(t) by consderng the dfferent gans among the players n each group. It s 13

14 mportant to observe that when compared wth the standard devaton calculated n Eq. 12, ths measures the varaton over the players (nternal) whle the frst measures the varaton over the turns (external). The varance σ(g) s also averaged over N run = 300 tme seres. Here, we also choose the same bad stuaton for the group (p = 0.7, ρ = 1/2, and α = 1/2) and start the smulatons wth all players n the same ntal unt nvestment (s (0) = 1, for = 1,2,...n). The results for the dfferent groups are presented n Fg. 6. For ε = 0, the gans reman approxmately the same as presented n the begnnng of prevous subsecton snce they correspond to smlar samplngs. However for ε > 0 the stuaton s dsastrous for bettors n the group whch s opposte for the bettors n the group that have a consderable ncrease n average as shown respectvely n Fgs 6 (a) and (b). g(t) (a) =0 =10-4 = = Group g(t) 0.1 (b) =0 =10-4 = = Group (g) (c) t(turns) =0 =10-4 = = t (turns) Group (g) (d) =0 =10-4 = = t(turns) t (turns) Group Fgure 6: Effects of the evolutonary nvestment on the gans of the players. Plots (a) and (b) shows the gans of the groups and, respectvely, for p = 0.7, ρ = 1/2, and α = 1/2. Plots (c) and (d) correspond, respectvely, to standard devatons of the gans of the groups and. ll these quanttes are average over N run = 300 runs. It s mportant to observe that the varance n the bettors n the group s due to the dfference between nformed and unnformed ones snce the nformed bettors necessarly have the same gan at the same turn. 14

15 However, ths does not occur for the bettors n the group, n whch the varance s calculated over many dfferent wealths. Ths s clear n Fgs. 6 (c) and (d) presented n log log scale. We can observe that the varance ε = 0 for the group has an algebrac decay σ(g)(t) t 1/2, ndcatng a dffusve effect, snce t means σ(w)(t) t 1/2. However, we do not observe ths same behavour for the group, whch does not present a power law for ε = 0. For dfferent values of ε, the standard devaton frst decreases and then, after some tme, enlarges whch ndcates the corroboraton wth the anomalous behavour of tme evoluton of gan. We also analyse other prosperous stuatons for the group for ε = 0, accordng to dagrams obtaned n the last subsecton, but the effects of the evolutonary dynamcs also destroy ther proft, showng that evolutonary dynamcs s not good to the nformed players dfferently than stuaton represented for the group. 4. Summares and bref conclusons In concluson, we proposed a new game whch presents an alternatve socal paradgm n economc scenaros wth ncomplete nformaton. Our results clam that benefts of nformaton can be destroyed under hgh altrusm, snce the nformed players, even wth hgh level nformaton (hgh p), can gan more tmes but small quanttes and the defeats, even rare, are rentless. On the other hand, even earnng few tmes, the unnformed players can outwegh ther losses, whch are n average more frequent, but nexpressve n absolute value. In an evolutonary verson of the game, we show that the gan of the nformed players can get worse f the followng approach s adopted: the player ncreases ts nvestment for postve payoffs, and decreases the nvestment for negatve payoffs. The results of our analytcal approach are corroborated by MC smulatons, and the fndngs suggest that a lot of new applcatons may be consdered n future nvestgatons, ncludng, for nstance, the study of spacal effects through the analyss of ths game n dfferent networks or even consderng the evolutonary aspects on the strateges. cknowledgements The authors would lke to thank CNPq (Natonal Councl for Scentfc and Technologcal Development) for the partal fnancal support. References [1] J. von Neumann e O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economc ehavor, Prnceton Unversty Press (1944) [2] J. Maynard Smth, Evoluton and Theory of the Games, Cambrdge Unversty Press (1982) [3] J. Hofbauer, K. Sgmund, ull. m. Math. Soc. 40, (2003) 15

16 [4] M. Nowak Evolutonary Dynamcs: Explorng the Equatons of Lfe, elknap Press (2006) [5]. Traulsen, J. C. Claussen, Chrstoph Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) [6]. Melbnger, J. Cremer, E. Frey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010) [7] J. F. Nash Jr., PNS, (1950), Econometrca, , (1950), nnals of Mathematcs, (1951), Econometrca (1953) [8] J. C. Harsany, R. Selten: General Theory of Equlbrum Selecton n Games. Cambrdge, M: The MIT Press (1988) [9] L. S. Shapley, PNS 39, 1095 (1953) [10] J. F. Mertens,. Neyman, Int. J. Game Theory 10, 53 (1981) [11] E. Solan, N. Velle, PNS 112, (2015) [12] W.. rthur, mer. Econ. Rev., 84, 406 (1994) [13] D. Challet, Y.C. Zhang, Physca 246: (1997) [14] G. Szabo, C. Hauert, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89: (2002) [15] C. Hauert and G. Szabo, Complexty, 8(4):31 38 (2003) [16] C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, and K. Sgmund, Scence, 296: (2002) [17] P.. Valverde, R. da Slva, E. V. Stock, Physca, 474, (2017) [18] R. da Slva. L. F. Gud,. T. aravera, Int. J. furcat. Chaos, 20, 1-12 (2010) [19] R. da Slva, raz. J. Phys., 38, (2008) [20] R. da Slva,.T. aravera, S. R. Dahmen,.L.C. azzan, Lect. Notes Econ. Math., 584, (2006) [21] R. da Slva,. L. C. azzan,. T. aravera, S. R. Dahmen, Physca. 371, (2006) [22] J. C. Harsany, Management Scence, 14(3) (1967) [23] R. da Slva, P. Valverde, L. C. Lamb, Commun. Nonlnear Sc. Numer. Smul. 36, (2016). 16