Notes for Section: Week 4
|
|
- Sophie Mason
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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. Let me know if you 1 Proofs About Nash Equilibria In this class, you will often have to prove that all Nash equilibria for a game have a particular characteristic. Problem set 3 required you to complete several such proofs. A useful technique for proving such statements is the proof by contradiction. Recall that in a proof by contradiction, you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, and then show that the assumption leads to an impossibility. To prove by contradiction that the Nash equilibria of a game have a particular characteristic, do the following: 1. Assume that the equilibria do not have the characteristic in question. 2. Show that if the equilibria do not have the characteristic, then some player can profitably deviate from her strategy to another with a higher payoff. 3. Conclude that because some player can profitably deviate from her strategy, she s not playing a best response, and that therefore the strategy profile cannot be a Nash equilibrium. It follows that all equilibria must have the characteristic. 2 Using Subgame Perfect Equilibrium to Analyze the Credibility of Threats and Promises An easy application of subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE) is to study the credibility of threats and promises. A threat or promise is credible if you have an incentive to carry it out after the party to whom you ve made your threat or promise acts. 1
2 2.1 Example 1: Predatory Pricing The market for dog biscuits has two firms. Call one firm the predator (P ), and call the other firm the rival (R). The predator is considering whether to engage in predatory pricing the practice of pricing below cost to inflict losses on a rival and drive her out of the market in the hope of reaping monopoly profits later. The rival first decides whether to stay in the market (S) orexitthemarket (E). The predator observes the rival s decision and then either engages in predatory pricing against the rival (P ) or doesn t engage in predatory pricing (D). If the rival exits the market, the predator gains a monopoly and earns 1000, while the rival gets 0. If the rival stays in the market, the firms share the market and each earns a profit of 300. Predatory pricing costs each firm 400, however, so if the rival stays in the market for dog biscuits (S) and the predator engages in predatory pricing (P ), each earns a total of In the following gametree,thepredator spayoff appears on top: R E S P P D Let s identify all NE and SPE for this game. We ll ignore mixed strategies. We ll first identify all NE by converting this game to normal form. The 2
3 payoff matrix is: Rival E S Predator P 1000, 0 100, 100 D 1000, 0 300, 300 We ll again use the method of drawing a line below a set of payoffs when the predator is playing a best response and a line above a set of payoffs when the rival is playing a best response. Clearly, the game has two NE in pure strategies: (P, E) and (D, S). Now, let s identify the SPE for this game using the extensive form. This game has perfect information (all information sets are singletons), so we can use backward induction. Start with the predator s decision. If the rival stays in the market (S), the predator is strictly better off not engaging in predatory pricing (D), so she ll choose D. Now look at the rival s decision. Anticipating that the predator won t prey on her, the rival will stay in the market (S) so she can earn 300 rather than 0. Thus, the only strategy profile consistent with backward induction, and thus the only SPE, is (D, S). Why isn t (P, E) a SPE? In this strategy profile, the predator threatens to engage in predatory pricing if the rival stays in the market, and the rival heeds her threat and exits the market. It isn t sequentially rational for the predator to carry out her threat, however: If the rival stays in the market, the predator earns a higher payoff from not preying (D). The predator s threat isn t credible because she has no incentive to carry it out. 3
4 2.2 Example 2: Predatory Pricing With Credit Constraints In a slightly different game, however, the threat to engage in predatory pricing can be credible. Suppose that the two firms play the same game as before, but that this time, the rival has limited ability to borrow while it loses money. Assume that if the rival ever loses money, it must go bankrupt and leave the industry. Accordingly, if the predator engages in predatory pricing, it bankrupts the rival, ensuring that the predator will have a monopoly in the market for dog biscuits in the future. So now, if the predator preys upon the rival, both firms lose 400 during the period of predatory pricing, but afterwards, the predator gains the monopoly profit of 1000 and the rival gets 0 since she s out of the market. Thus, the predator s total payoff if the rival stays in the market and the predator preys is = 600, and the rival s payoff is = Thenewgametreeis: R E S P P D
5 Let s again find the NE and SPE for this game. The payoff matrix is: Rival E S Predator P 1000, 0 600, 400 D 1000, 0 300, 300 Now, the only NE is (P, E), and it s easy to show that this strategy profile is also the only SPE. In the subgame beginning with the predator s decision, the Nash equilibrium is for the predator to drive the rival out of the market with predatory pricing. Anticipating that the predator will make good on her threat, the prey will now exit the market without a fight. The difference between this game and the previous game is that in this game, it s actually profitable for the predator to follow through on her threat because she gains a monopoly when the rival goes bankrupt. So in this game, predatory pricing is a credible threat. The beauty of this credible threat is that because the threat is credible, the predator never has to use it! The bottom line: In dynamic games, players playing a NE can make threats or promises that are not credible, in the sense that players would not have incentives to carry out their threats or promises if necessary. This attribute is a clear defect of NE as a solution concept. SPE rules out threats and promises that aren t credible with its requirement that players choose actions that are sequentially rational at every node, even nodes that are not reached in equilibrium. 5
6 3 Complication #1: Subgames With Multiple Nash Equilibria The following example illustrates how to analyze a dynamic game that has multiple equilibria in one of its subgames. This sort of complication could easily arise in an exam or problem set. Consider the following game in extensive form: 1 L R X Y 1 1 T B T B First, let s identify all proper subgames of this game. Recall that a proper subgame is a set of nodes and corresponding payoffs satisfying two conditions: 6
7 1. A proper subgame must contain a single root node and all its successors. 2. A proper subgame must contain all nodes in a particular information set if it contains any node belonging to the information set. This game has two proper subgames. The first subgame is the subgame beginning with player 1 s choice between T and B. The second subgame is the entire game. Let s again ignore mixed strategies and find all NE and SPE in pure strategies for this game. We first find all NE by writing out the game in normal form: Player 2 X Y LT 3, 0 3, 0 Player 1 LB 3, 0 3, 0 RT 3, 3 2, 6 RB 6, 2 1, 1 We can quickly identify three NE in pure strategies: (LT, Y ), (LB, Y ), and (RB, X). Next, let s find all the SPE of this game. We can t apply backward induction to this game because it is not a game of perfect information not all information sets consist of single nodes. Instead, we must use the definition of a SPE it induces a NE in every proper subgame and identify the NE for every subgame. The first subgame, beginning at player 1 s choice between T and B, isa2x2 game with simultaneous moves: Player 2 X Y Player 1 T 3, 3 2, 6 B 6, 2 1, 1 This subgame has two NE in pure strategies: (T,Y ) and (B,X). Thus, in a SPE for the entire game, the only possible pairs of actions in this subgame are (T,Y ) and (B,X). Now consider the second subgame, which is the entire game. Player 1 chooses between L and R anticipating that if she chooses R, either(t,y ) or (B,X) will follow. If player 1 expects player 2 to play Y,thenplayer1 will choose L, sincel gives her 3 rather than 2. If player 1 expects player 2 to play X, thenplayer1 will choose R, sincer gives her 6 rather than 3. Thus, the only possible NE for this subgame are (LT, Y ) and (RB, X). We ve shown that (LT, Y ) and (RB, X) induce NE in both proper subgames, so we ve shown that the only two SPE for the entire game are (LT, Y ) and (RB, X). (LB, Y ) is a NE but not a SPE. Neither player is playing a best response in the subgame with simultaneous moves. Notice that one of the two SPE, (LT, Y ), is Pareto inferior to the other, (RB, X). Bothplayerswouldratherplay(RB, X). The Pareto inferior SPE, (LT, Y ), results from player 1 s expectation that player 2 would insist upon the equilibrium more favorable to 2 in the subgame with simultaneous moves. Player 1 therefore chooses L to avoid this subgame and obtain a higher payoff. 7
8 The bottom line: When a subgame has multiple NE, you must check for SPE inducing each of the possible NE in the subgame. 4 Complication #2: Subgames With Nash Equilibria in Mixed Strategies Let s reexamine the previous example, but this time allow the players to play mixed strategies in the subgame with simultaneous moves. (We could allow the players to play any mixed strategies, but the analysis would quickly get tedious.) Again, this complication has appeared on previous exams. We ll now check whether allowing mixed strategies in the subgame with simultaneous moves changes the set of NE for this game. We re now allowing player 1 to mix between actions T and B, and we re allowing 2 to mix between X and Y. Since player 1 can mix between actions T and B, shecanmix between strategies LT and LB, orbetweenrt and RB. Recall that a player only plays a mixed strategy in Nash equilibrium when she s indifferent toward the strategies she plays with positive probability and (weakly) prefers these strategies to any she does not play with positive probability. Accordingly, we must check whether player 1 can play a mixed strategy that makes player 2 indifferent toward her strategies and whether 2 can make 1 indifferent toward either LT and LB, orrt and RB. As usual, denote mixed strategies by vectors of probabilities assigned to pure strategies. We quickly see that there are two ways that player 1 can make player 2 indifferent. If player 1 plays any mix of LT and LB, thenplayer2 will receive thesameexpectedpayoff (0) from X and Y. Player 1 can also make player 2 indifferent by playing the mixed strategy σ 1 =(0, 0, 0.25, 0.75), whichgives player 2 apayoff of 2.25 from both her pure strategies. Now we ll see whether player 2 has a mixed strategy that will make player 1 willing to mix. If player 2 plays σ 2 =(0.25, 0.75), then1 will be indifferent between RT and RB, since both will yield a payoff of won t be willing to mix between RT and RB in equilibrium, however, because she gets a higher payoff (3) from either LT or LB. Any mixed strategy of player 2 makes player 1 indifferent between LT and LB, but we need to make sure that 1 does not prefer RT or RB to LT and LB when 2 plays her mixed strategy. If 2 plays σ 2 =(q, 1 q) with q [0, 1], thenplayer1 s payoffs from her pure strategies are: u 1 (LT ) = u 1 (LB) =3 u 1 (RT ) = 3q +2(1 q) =2+q u 1 (RB) = 6q +(1 q) =1+5q Player 1 will never strictly prefer RT toamixoflt and LB, since q [0, 1], u 1 (RT )=2+q 3=u 1 (LT )=u 1 (LB). Player 1 will strictly prefer RB to 8
9 amixoflt and LB, however,ifu 1 (RB) =1+5q>3, which happens when q>0.4. So player 1 will only mix between LT and LB when 2 plays the mixed strategy σ 2 =(q, 1 q) with q [0, 0.4]. We conclude that allowing the players to use mixed strategies in the subgame with simultaneous moves creates a continuum of new Nash equilibria of the form σ 1 =(p, 1 p, 0, 0), σ 2 =(q, 1 q) with p [0, 1], andq [0, 0.4]. We now check whether allowing mixed strategies changes the set of SPE. First, observe that allowing mixed strategies in the subgame with simultaneous moves gives this subgame a new NE. The players are both indifferent between their pure actions if and only if they play the profile of mixed actions bσ 1 =(0.25, 0.75) and bσ 2 =(0.25, 0.75). (Recall that we solve for equilibria in mixed strategies by first finding the set of mixed strategies for player i that make player j indifferent toward some of his pure strategies and then find the set of mixed strategies for j that make i indifferent toward some of his pure strategies.) If they play these mixed actions, then both players receive payoffs of 2.25 from each of their two pure actions, so both are indifferent and therefore willing to mix in equilibrium. This subgame has no other equilibria in mixed strategies. Second, observe that if the players play bσ 1 =(0.25, 0.75) and bσ 2 =(0.25, 0.75) in the subgame with simultaneous moves, then player 1 will choose L, giving her a payoff of 3 rather than the payoff of 2.25 from choosing R. Thus, allowing mixed strategies in the subgame with simultaneous moves creates only 1 new SPE: eσ 1 =(0.25, 0.75, 0, 0), andeσ 2 =(0.25, 0.75). (Youshouldbeable to express these mixed strategies as behavioral strategies!) All the other new NE are not SPE, because in these other new NE the players do not play best responses in the subgame with simultaneous moves. Bottom line: Watch out for equilibria in mixed strategies even in dynamic games, and look for SPE in which players mix in some subgames. 5 Complication #3: Continuous Action Spaces So far, we ve only analyzed examples in which the players had finite sets of actions at each information set. You should also, however, be prepared to solve problems in which the players have infinite sets of actions at some information sets. You and your dog own the only two firms in the dog biscuit industry. Dog biscuits are differentiated products. You and your dog compete by choosing prices. Let p Y be your price, and let your dog s price be p D. Your demand is D Y (p Y,p D )=A αp Y + βp D, and your dog s demand is D D (p D,p Y )= A αp D + βp Y. Notice that each firm s demand decreases with its own price and increases with its rival s price. Assume α>β>0, sothateachfirm s demand is more sensitive to its own price than to its rival s price. To keep the analysis simple, also assume that the firms only choose prices for which the 9
10 preceding expressions give non-negative demands. Assume both firms have zero costs, so the profit functions are: π Y (p Y,p D ) = p Y D Y (p Y,p D )=p Y (A αp Y + βp D ) π D (p D,p Y ) = p D D D (p D,p Y )=p D (A αp D + βp Y ) Throughout this problem, ignore mixed strategies. First, suppose you and your dog choose prices simultaneously. We find the best response functions by maximizing each firm s profit with respect to its own price, taking the other firm s price as given. The first order conditions are: π Y (p Y,p D ) p Y = A p Y + βp D =0 π D (p D,p Y ) p D = A p D + βp Y =0 (Throughout this example, second order conditions are satisfied because each firm s profit functionisconcaveinitsownprice.) Thebestresponsefunctions are: BR Y (p D ) = A + βp D BR D (p Y ) = A + βp Y In Nash equilibrium, both firms play best responses, so we solve the pair of equations p Y = BR Y (p D ) and p D = BR D (p Y ) to obtain p Y = p D = A β. This pair of prices is the unique Nash equilibrium. Now, suppose that you choose your price first, and then your dog chooses his price after observing your price. Let s find all the SPE in pure strategies. We ll also note the possibility of NE that are not SPE. Before we begin, ask yourself how many proper subgames this game has. Since a unique subgame follows every possible choice of price you can make, and since you can choose from infinitely many possible prices, there must be infinitely many proper subgames. Now ask yourself how many proper subgames the game had when you and your dog chose prices simultaneously. Since neither player knew the other s price, there was only one subgame the game as a whole. We conclude that a game with continuous strategy sets will often, but not always, have infinitely many proper subgames. Observe that this game has perfect information: All information sets consist of single nodes. We can therefore identify all SPE using backward induction. Your dog chooses his optimal price after observing your price. Given your price, his best response function provides his unique profit-maximizing price. He therefore sets p D = BR D (p Y )= A+βp Y. WehavefoundtheonlyNEofthe subgames beginning with your dog s choice of price. 10
11 We now look for NE of the only other subgame the game as a whole that induce NE in the subgames beginning with your dog s choice. Since we must have NE in the subgames beginning with your dog s choice, we know that you anticipate he ll choose p D = A+βpY. You therefore solve: maxπ Y (p Y,BR D (p Y )) = π Y (p Y, A + βp Y )=p Y (A αp Y + β( A + βp Y )) p Y Your first order condition is: A(1 + β β2 ) 2(α )p Y =0 You therefore choose p Y = A(+β). WehavenowfoundtheonlyNEinthe 4α 2 2β 2 game as a whole that induces a NE in every subgame i.e. the only SPE. It is: p Y = A( + β) 4α 2 2β 2 p D (p Y ) = A + βp Y With a bit more algebra, you can show that you choose a higher price in this game than in the game in which you and your dog choose prices simultaneously. Since you choose a higher price in this game, and your dog s best response function increases with your price, your dog also chooses a higher price. In effect, you commit to a high price by moving first, and your dog, secure in the knowledge that your price will be high, also chooses a high price. With still more algebra, we can show that your profit is lower than your dog s profit, so unlike in the sequential Cournot game, moving first in this game is a disadvantage. Nonetheless, both players are strictly better off in the sequential game than in the game with simultaneous moves! Here s a numerical example to illustrate these points. Assume the following parameter values: A = 30 α = 2 β = 1 In the pricing game with simultaneous moves, the outcome is: p Y = p D =10 q Y = q D =20 π Y = π D =
12 In the sequential pricing game in which you move first, the outcome is: p Y = p D = q Y = q D = π Y = π D =
Notes 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 informationExtensive-Form Games with Imperfect Information
May 6, 2015 Example 2, 2 A 3, 3 C Player 1 Player 1 Up B Player 2 D 0, 0 1 0, 0 Down C Player 1 D 3, 3 Extensive-Form Games With Imperfect Information Finite No simultaneous moves: each node belongs to
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationEcon 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 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 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 informationDuopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma
Recap Last class (September 20, 2016) Duopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma Today (October 13, 2016) Finitely
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationLECTURE NOTES ON GAME THEORY. Player 2 Cooperate Defect Cooperate (10,10) (-1,11) Defect (11,-1) (0,0)
LECTURE NOTES ON GAME THEORY September 11, 01 Introduction: So far we have considered models of perfect competition and monopoly which are the two polar extreme cases of market outcome. In models of monopoly,
More informationIntroduction to Game Theory
Introduction to Game Theory Part 2. Dynamic games of complete information Chapter 1. Dynamic games of complete and perfect information Ciclo Profissional 2 o Semestre / 2011 Graduação em Ciências Econômicas
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 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 informationEconomics 51: Game Theory
Economics 51: Game Theory Liran Einav April 21, 2003 So far we considered only decision problems where the decision maker took the environment in which the decision is being taken as exogenously given:
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 informationS 2,2-1, x c C x r, 1 0,0
Problem Set 5 1. There are two players facing each other in the following random prisoners dilemma: S C S, -1, x c C x r, 1 0,0 With probability p, x c = y, and with probability 1 p, x c = 0. With probability
More informationSequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium
Sequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium Carlos Hurtado Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hrtdmrt2@illinois.edu June 16th, 2016 C. Hurtado (UIUC - Economics)
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 informationEconomics 335 March 2, 1999 Notes 6: Game Theory
Economics 335 March 2, 1999 Notes 6: Game Theory I. Introduction A. Idea of Game Theory Game theory analyzes interactions between rational, decision-making individuals who may not be able to predict fully
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 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 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 information1 Solutions to Homework 3
1 Solutions to Homework 3 1.1 163.1 (Nash equilibria of extensive games) 1. 164. (Subgames) Karl R E B H B H B H B H B H B H There are 6 proper subgames, beginning at every node where or chooses an action.
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 informationMicroeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems
Microeconomics II CIDE, MsC Economics List of Problems 1. There are three people, Amy (A), Bart (B) and Chris (C): A and B have hats. These three people are arranged in a room so that B can see everything
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 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 informationMicroeconomics III Final Exam SOLUTIONS 3/17/11. Muhamet Yildiz
14.123 Microeconomics III Final Exam SOLUTIONS 3/17/11 Muhamet Yildiz Instructions. This is an open-book exam. You can use the results in the notes and the answers to the problem sets without proof, but
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 informationAS/ECON 2350 S2 N Answers to Mid term Exam July time : 1 hour. Do all 4 questions. All count equally.
AS/ECON 2350 S2 N Answers to Mid term Exam July 2017 time : 1 hour Do all 4 questions. All count equally. Q1. Monopoly is inefficient because the monopoly s owner makes high profits, and the monopoly s
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationLecture 5 Leadership and Reputation
Lecture 5 Leadership and Reputation Reputations arise in situations where there is an element of repetition, and also where coordination between players is possible. One definition of leadership is that
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO March 27, 2015 Homework #1 Homework #1 will be due at the end of class today. Please check the website later today for the solutions
More informationChapter 11: Dynamic Games and First and Second Movers
Chapter : Dynamic Games and First and Second Movers Learning Objectives Students should learn to:. Extend the reaction function ideas developed in the Cournot duopoly model to a model of sequential behavior
More informationThe Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (D, R), giving payoffs (0, 0). Consider the trigger strategies:
Problem Set 4 1. (a). Consider the infinitely repeated game with discount rate δ, where the strategic fm below is the stage game: B L R U 1, 1 2, 5 A D 2, 0 0, 0 Sketch a graph of the players payoffs.
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 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 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 informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016 More on strategic games and extensive games with perfect information Block 2 Jun 11, 2017 Auctions results Histogram of
More informationGAME THEORY: DYNAMIC. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. Frank Cowell: Dynamic Game Theory
Prerequisites Almost essential Game Theory: Strategy and Equilibrium GAME THEORY: DYNAMIC MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell April 2018 1 Overview Game Theory: Dynamic Mapping the temporal
More informationHW Consider the following game:
HW 1 1. Consider the following game: 2. HW 2 Suppose a parent and child play the following game, first analyzed by Becker (1974). First child takes the action, A 0, that produces income for the child,
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 informationEconomics 209A Theory and Application of Non-Cooperative Games (Fall 2013) Repeated games OR 8 and 9, and FT 5
Economics 209A Theory and Application of Non-Cooperative Games (Fall 2013) Repeated games OR 8 and 9, and FT 5 The basic idea prisoner s dilemma The prisoner s dilemma game with one-shot payoffs 2 2 0
More informationMIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395
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
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 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 informationEconomics 502 April 3, 2008
Second Midterm Answers Prof. Steven Williams Economics 502 April 3, 2008 A full answer is expected: show your work and your reasoning. You can assume that "equilibrium" refers to pure strategies unless
More informationMA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE
MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE Problem Set 1 These questions will go over basic game-theoretic concepts and some applications. homework is due during class on week 4. This [1] In this problem (see Fudenberg-Tirole
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 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 informationIntroduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 5: Repeated Games
Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 5: Repeated Games Haifeng Huang University of California, Merced Repeated games Repeated games: given a simultaneous-move game G, a repeated game of G is an extensive
More informationProblem Set 2 - SOLUTIONS
Problem Set - SOLUTONS 1. Consider the following two-player game: L R T 4, 4 1, 1 B, 3, 3 (a) What is the maxmin strategy profile? What is the value of this game? Note, the question could be solved like
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 informationExercise Chapter 10
Exercise 10.8.1 Where the isoprofit curves touch the gradients of the profits of Alice and Bob point in the opposite directions. Thus, increasing one agent s profit will necessarily decrease the other
More informationFinding Mixed-strategy Nash Equilibria in 2 2 Games ÙÛ
Finding Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibria in 2 2 Games Page 1 Finding Mixed-strategy Nash Equilibria in 2 2 Games ÙÛ Introduction 1 The canonical game 1 Best-response correspondences 2 A s payoff as a function
More informationCHAPTER 15 Sequential rationality 1-1
. CHAPTER 15 Sequential rationality 1-1 Sequential irrationality Industry has incumbent. Potential entrant chooses to go in or stay out. If in, incumbent chooses to accommodate (both get modest profits)
More informationAnswers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average)
Answers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, 2016 1. In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average) cost. To investigate the consequences of markup pricing,
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 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 informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV. If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to
GAME THEORY PROBLEM SET 1 WINTER 2018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to andrey.zhukov@aalto.fi. Materials from Osborne and Rubinstein
More informationMicroeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2013 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
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 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 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 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 informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO March 22, 2015 Homework #1 Homework #1 will be due at the end of class today. Please check the website later today for the solutions
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 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 informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2015
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2015 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
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 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 informationAn introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]
An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1] Ning Zhang 14 May, 2012 [1] Game Theory in Wireless Networks: A Tutorial 1 Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Static games 3 Extensive-form games 4 Summary
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 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 informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO May 24, 2016 Announcements Homework #4 is due next week. Review of Last Lecture In extensive games with imperfect information,
More informationChapter 8. Repeated Games. Strategies and payoffs for games played twice
Chapter 8 epeated Games 1 Strategies and payoffs for games played twice Finitely repeated games Discounted utility and normalized utility Complete plans of play for 2 2 games played twice Trigger strategies
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: June 5, 2017
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: June 5, 07. (40 points) Consider a Cournot duopoly. The market price is given by q q, where q and q are the quantities of output produced
More informationMixed Strategies. Samuel Alizon and Daniel Cownden February 4, 2009
Mixed Strategies Samuel Alizon and Daniel Cownden February 4, 009 1 What are Mixed Strategies In the previous sections we have looked at games where players face uncertainty, and concluded that they choose
More information1 Two Period Exchange Economy
University of British Columbia Department of Economics, Macroeconomics (Econ 502) Prof. Amartya Lahiri Handout # 2 1 Two Period Exchange Economy We shall start our exploration of dynamic economies with
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 informationCredibility and Subgame Perfect Equilibrium
Chapter 7 Credibility and Subgame Perfect Equilibrium 1 Subgames and their equilibria The concept of subgames Equilibrium of a subgame Credibility problems: threats you have no incentives to carry out
More informationEcon 101A Final exam Mo 19 May, 2008.
Econ 101 Final exam Mo 19 May, 2008. Stefano apologizes for not being at the exam today. His reason is called Thomas. From Stefano: Good luck to you all, you are a great class! Do not turn the page until
More informationREPEATED GAMES. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. Frank Cowell: Repeated Games. Almost essential Game Theory: Dynamic.
Prerequisites Almost essential Game Theory: Dynamic REPEATED GAMES MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell April 2018 1 Overview Repeated Games Basic structure Embedding the game in context
More informationOn Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms
On Existence of Equilibria in Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms Northwestern University April 23, 2014 Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms In allocation mechanisms, agents choose messages. The messages determine
More informationIn Class Exercises. Problem 1
In Class Exercises Problem 1 A group of n students go to a restaurant. Each person will simultaneously choose his own meal but the total bill will be shared amongst all the students. If a student chooses
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 informationCorporate Control. Itay Goldstein. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Corporate Control Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 1 Managerial Discipline and Takeovers Managers often don t maximize the value of the firm; either because they are not capable
More information