The Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (D, R), giving payoffs (0, 0). Consider the trigger strategies:

Similar documents
Repeated Games. Econ 400. University of Notre Dame. Econ 400 (ND) Repeated Games 1 / 48

S 2,2-1, x c C x r, 1 0,0

Economics 171: Final Exam

Not 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.

Warm Up Finitely Repeated Games Infinitely Repeated Games Bayesian Games. Repeated Games

G5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017

Duopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma

In the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Graduate School of Management and Economics

ECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 2015

Repeated Games. September 3, Definitions: Discounting, Individual Rationality. Finitely Repeated Games. Infinitely Repeated Games

M.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II. These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term. 1

Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 5: Repeated Games

Game Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Repeated Games

Econ 414 Midterm Exam

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.

Outline for Dynamic Games of Complete Information

In reality; some cases of prisoner s dilemma end in cooperation. Game Theory Dr. F. Fatemi Page 219

Solution Problem Set 2

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: June 5, 2017

Chapter 8. Repeated Games. Strategies and payoffs for games played twice

Name. Answers Discussion Final Exam, Econ 171, March, 2012

REPEATED GAMES. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. Frank Cowell: Repeated Games. Almost essential Game Theory: Dynamic.

Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)

CHAPTER 14: REPEATED PRISONER S DILEMMA

PRISONER S DILEMMA. Example from P-R p. 455; also 476-7, Price-setting (Bertrand) duopoly Demand functions

February 23, An Application in Industrial Organization

Noncooperative Oligopoly

Infinitely Repeated Games

Player 2 L R M H a,a 7,1 5,0 T 0,5 5,3 6,6

Answer Key: Problem Set 4

MA300.2 Game Theory 2005, LSE

Problem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1

Economics 209A Theory and Application of Non-Cooperative Games (Fall 2013) Repeated games OR 8 and 9, and FT 5

Econ 302 Assignment 3 Solution. a 2bQ c = 0, which is the monopolist s optimal quantity; the associated price is. P (Q) = a b

Lecture 9: Basic Oligopoly Models

Eco AS , J. Sandford, spring 2019 March 9, Midterm answers

EconS 424 Strategy and Game Theory. Homework #5 Answer Key

Repeated Games with Perfect Monitoring

AS/ECON 2350 S2 N Answers to Mid term Exam July time : 1 hour. Do all 4 questions. All count equally.

Prisoner s dilemma with T = 1

Economics 431 Infinitely repeated games

Spring 2017 Final Exam

Topics in Contract Theory Lecture 1

ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY MIDTERM EXAM #2 ANSWER KEY

Answers to Problem Set 4

Introduction to Multi-Agent Programming

14.12 Game Theory Midterm II 11/15/ Compute all the subgame perfect equilibria in pure strategies for the following game:

Repeated Games. EC202 Lectures IX & X. Francesco Nava. January London School of Economics. Nava (LSE) EC202 Lectures IX & X Jan / 16

B w x y z a 4,4 3,3 5,1 2,2 b 3,6 2,5 6,-3 1,4 A c -2,0 2,-1 0,0 2,1 d 1,4 1,2 1,1 3,5

Game Theory. Important Instructions

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers

ECON106P: Pricing and Strategy

Game Theory: Additional Exercises

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

1 Solutions to Homework 4

Econ 323 Microeconomic Theory. Chapter 10, Question 1

Simon Fraser University Spring 2014

Iterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium

Early PD experiments

Game Theory and Economics Prof. Dr. Debarshi Das Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati

1 Solutions to Homework 3

Strategies and Nash Equilibrium. A Whirlwind Tour of Game Theory

Problem Set 2 Answers

An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]

Microeconomics I - Seminar #9, April 17, Suggested Solution

Microeconomics I. Undergraduate Programs in Business Administration and Economics

Elements of Economic Analysis II Lecture X: Introduction to Game Theory

Problem 3,a. ds 1 (s 2 ) ds 2 < 0. = (1+t)

Game Theory Fall 2003

HE+ Economics Nash Equilibrium

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 9

Econ 711 Homework 1 Solutions

m 11 m 12 Non-Zero Sum Games Matrix Form of Zero-Sum Games R&N Section 17.6

Introduction to Game Theory

Game Theory Notes: Examples of Games with Dominant Strategy Equilibrium or Nash Equilibrium

13.1 Infinitely Repeated Cournot Oligopoly

is the best response of firm 1 to the quantity chosen by firm 2. Firm 2 s problem: Max Π 2 = q 2 (a b(q 1 + q 2 )) cq 2

IPR Protection in the High-Tech Industries: A Model of Piracy. Thierry Rayna University of Bristol

Introduction to Game Theory

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017

Economics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions

Oligopoly (contd.) Chapter 27

Economics 502 April 3, 2008

EconS 424 Strategy and Game Theory. Homework #5 Answer Key

Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games

ECON/MGEC 333 Game Theory And Strategy Problem Set 9 Solutions. Levent Koçkesen January 6, 2011

Econ 323 Microeconomic Theory. Practice Exam 2 with Solutions

Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games

ECO303: Intermediate Microeconomic Theory Benjamin Balak, Spring 2008

Game Theory. VK Room: M1.30 Last updated: October 22, 2012.

Optimal selling rules for repeated transactions.

EC 202. Lecture notes 14 Oligopoly I. George Symeonidis

Solutions to Homework 3

Notes for Section: Week 4

6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts

Final Examination December 14, Economics 5010 AF3.0 : Applied Microeconomics. time=2.5 hours

Agenda. Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection

Transcription:

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. Show what utilities could be suppted using the Nash threats folk theem. Show that f sufficiently patient players, it is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium to play (U, L) in every period. What is the minimum δ that achieves cooperation? The Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (D, R), giving payoffs (0, 0). Consider the trigger strategies: If the histy is (U, L), (U, L),..., (U, L), play (U, L) this period. After any other histy, play (D, R) Does either player have a profitable deviation? F the row player, following the proposed strategies gives a payoff of and deviating gives a payoff of so cooperating is better than deviating if 1 + δ1 + δ 2 1 +... = 1 2 + δ0 + δ 2 0 +... = 2 1 2 δ 1 2 F the column player, following the proposed strategies gives a payoff of and deviating gives a payoff of So cooperating is better than deviating if 1 + δ1 + δ 2 +... = 1 5 + δ0 + δ 2 0 +... = 5 1 5 δ 4 5 THEREFORE, as long as δ 4/5, the trigger strategies are a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium

(b). Consider the infinitely repeated game with discount rate δ, where the strategic fm below is the stage game: B L R U 2, 1 0, 0 A D 0, 0 1, 2 Sketch a graph of the players payoffs. Show what utilities could be suppted using the Nash threats folk theem. Show that f sufficiently patient players, it is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium to play (U, L) in every even period, and (D, R) in every odd period. What is the minimum δ that achieves cooperation? (Hint: You might need to use mixed strategies) There are three equilibria in the stage game. There are two pure-strategy Nash equilibria, (U, L) and (D, R), and a mixed one with strategies This gives expected payoffs 2/3 to each player. Consider the trigger strategies: σ u = 2 3, σ d = 1 3, σ L = 1 3, σ R = 2 3 If the histy is (D, R), (U, L), (D, R), (U, L),..., (D, R), play (U, L) this period. If the histy is (D, R), (U, L), (D, R), (U, L),..., (U, L), play (D, R) this period. If the histy is anything else, play the mixed strategy equilibrium of the stage game. Does either player have a profitable deviation? When it s your turn to get the 2, the payoff from cooperating is 2 + δ + 2δ 2 + δ 3 + 2δ 4 +... = (2 + δ)(1 + δ 2 + δ 4 1 +...) = (2 + δ) 2 and when it s your turn to get the 1, the payoff from cooperating is 1 + 2δ + 1δ 2 + 2δ 3 +... = (1 + 2δ)(1 + δ 2 + δ 4 1 +...) = (1 + 2δ) 2 Well, the row player might deviate after a histy (D, R), (U, L), (D, R), (U, L),..., (D, R) from U to D, after a histy (D, R), (U, L), (D, R), (U, L),..., (U, L) to U, both give a payoff 0 + δ 2 3 + 2 δ2 3 +... = 2 δ 3 Comparing the sums term-by-term, 2, 1 > 0 and 1, 2 > 2/3, and 2, 1 > 2/3, and so on, so the first two sums are always better than the third one. Therefe neither player ever has an incentive to deviate. Or if you look at the sums, (2+δ), (1+δ) > 2/3, and 1/(1 δ 2 ) > 1/(1 δ), so that the discounted sums of the first two payoffs are greater than the discounted sum of the third payoff. Therefe, deviating is never profitable. THEREFORE, as long as δ 0, the trigger strategies are a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium

(c). Consider the infinitely repeated game with discount rate δ, where the strategic fm below is the stage game: 2 L C R U 4, 4 0, 5 5, 6 1 M 5, 0 1, 1 6, 0 D 6, 5 0, 6 7, 7 Sketch a graph of the players payoffs. Show what utilities could be suppted using the Nash threats folk theem. Show that f sufficiently patient players, it is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium to play (U, L) in every period. What is the minimum δ that achieves cooperation? Are there multiple ways to design the punishments f cheating? What is the lowest δ you can achieve? There are three Nash equilibria in the stage game: (M, C), (D, L), and (U, R). Consider the following trigger strategies: If the histy is (U, L), (U, L),..., (U, L), then play (U, L). After any other histy, play (M, C). Cooperating then gives both players a discounted payoff of 4 + δ4 + δ 2 4 +... = 4 Then the most profitable deviation f the row player is to choose D and get a payoff of 6, followed by the punishment, and the most profitable deviation f the column player is to choose R and get a payoff of 6, followed by the punishment. This gives a discounted payoff of deviating to either player of 6 + δ1 + δ 2 1 + δ 3 1 +... = 6 + δ 4 6 + δ Or 4 6() + δ δ 2 5 THEREFORE, if δ 2/5, the above trigger strategies are a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium Are there other ways to enfce cooperation? Think about these strategies: If the histy is (U, L), (U, L),..., (U, L), then play (U, L). After any histy in which the row player deviated first, play (U, R) After any histy in which the column player deviated first, play (D, L)

After any histy in which both players deviated first at the same time, play (M, C). This punishes the deviat with a 5 payoff fever, and rewards the player who didn t cheat with a 6 fever. The payoff from deviating f either player is 6 5δ 5δ 2 5δ 3 +... = 6 5 δ 4 6 5 δ 4 6() 5δ δ 2 11 THEREFORE, if δ 2/11, the above trigger strategies are a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium This is the lowest you can get, since a payoff of 5 is the wst you can impose on a player, given that the player is trying to maximize his payoff. 2. Consider the N-player prisoners dilemma: If all players choose S, they each get a payoff of N If a single player chooses C while all others choose S, that player gets N 2 and the others get 1 If me than one player confesses, all players who confess get zero while any player who remains silent gets 1 i. What is the Nash equilibrium of the N-player prisoners dilemma? ii. Consider the infinitely repeated game with discount fact δ where the N-player prisoners dilemma is the stage game. Show that f sufficiently patient players, it is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium to play S in every period. What is the minimum δ that achieves cooperation? iii. What happens to the minimum δ as N increases? i. All players confess is the Nash equilibrium of the game. In fact, it is a strictly dominant strategy to confess. Suppose all other players are silent; by confessing, I get a payoff of N 2, and from silent, I get a payoff of N, so confessing is better. Suppose at least one player is confessing; by remaining silent, I get a payoff of 1, while by confessing I get a payoff of zero, so confessing is better. Therefe, no matter what my opponents are doing, I get a higher payoff by confessing, so it is a strictly dominant strategy. ii. Consider the following trigger strategies: After any histy in which all players chose silent in all previous periods, play silent this period.

After any other histy, confess. The discounted payoff of cooperating is Deviating and confessing gives a payoff N + δn + δ 2 N +... = N N 2 + δ0 + δ 2 0 +... = N 2 N N 2 δ 1 1 N THEREFORE, if δ 1 1/N, the trigger strategies are a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium iii. As N increases, we get δ(2) = 1 1/2 = 1/1, δ(3) = 2/3, δ(4) = 3/4,..., which tends to 1. Since 1/N 0 as N, when the game is really big, the discount fact will be close to 1, making cooperating me difficult. 3. There s a market with two firms who are contemplating acting collusively. If they cut production so that each is making half the monopoly quantity, they each get π m = 2. If they act as Cournot competits, they both get π c = 1. If one player plays the monopoly quantity, the other player can take advantage of the situation and increase output, getting a larger share of the market f himself at the expense of his partner, who gets 0 if this occurs; call this value π d, f optimal deviation. Here s a strategic fm f the game: Collude F irmb Compete Collude 2, 2 0,π d F irma Compete π d, 0 1, 1 i. F what values of π d does this have the fm of a prisoner s dilemma, i.e., each player has a dominant strategy to play competitively? Assume this inequality holds f the rest of the problem. ii. Assume the game is repeatedly infinitely with discount fact δ. Show that f sufficiently patient players, it is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium to collude in every period. What is the minimum δ that achieves cooperation? iii. How does the minimum δ change as π d increases? Does this make collusion me less likely to succeed? i. If π d > 2, the players have a dominant strategy to compete. ii. The Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (Compete, Compete), giving payoffs (1, 1). Colluding gives payoffs (2, 2). Consider the trigger strategies

If the histy is (Collude, Collude), (Collude, Collude),... Collude this period., (Collude, Collude), play If the histy is anything else, Compete this period. Then the payoff to cooperating is and the payoff to deviating is Solving f δ gives 2 + δ2 + δ 2 2 + δ 3 2 +... = 2 π d + δ + δ 2 + δ 3 +... = π d + 2 π d + δ 2 ()π d + δ δ π d 2 π d 1 δ THEREFORE, as long as δ π d 2, the above trigger strategies are a subgame perfect Nash π d 1 equilibrium iii. The minimum δ is δ = π d 2 π d 1 Differentiating with respect to π d gives so the minimum δ is increasing in π d. δ π d = (π d 1) (π d 2) (π d 1) 2 = 1 (π d 1) 2 > 0