ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium

Similar documents
ECONS STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY QUIZ #3 (SIGNALING GAMES) ANSWER KEY

ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HOMEWORK #7 ANSWER KEY

Out of equilibrium beliefs and Refinements of PBE

Answers to Problem Set 4

The Intuitive and Divinity Criterion: Explanation and Step-by-step examples

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

Problem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1

Extensive-Form Games with Imperfect Information

Rationalizable Strategies

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions

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.

4. Beliefs at all info sets off the equilibrium path are determined by Bayes' Rule & the players' equilibrium strategies where possible.

Extensive form games - contd

Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.

EconS Signalling Games II

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final)

G5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017

Simon Fraser University Spring 2014

Advanced Microeconomics

HW Consider the following game:

Sequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

1 x i c i if x 1 +x 2 > 0 u i (x 1,x 2 ) = 0 if x 1 +x 2 = 0

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.

ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HOMEWORK #7 ANSWER KEY

National Security Strategy: Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

Answer Key: Problem Set 4

Economics 171: Final Exam

Chapter 11: Dynamic Games and First and Second Movers

Spring 2017 Final Exam

Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.

Microeconomic Theory II Spring 2016 Final Exam Solutions

Information and Evidence in Bargaining

ECON 459 Game Theory. Lecture Notes Auctions. Luca Anderlini Spring 2017

Name. FINAL EXAM, Econ 171, March, 2015

Beliefs and Sequential Rationality

Econ 711 Homework 1 Solutions

ECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson Fall 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22)

Game Theory. Important Instructions

MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395

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

Simon Fraser University Fall Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM

Games of Incomplete Information

Online Appendix for Military Mobilization and Commitment Problems

Signaling Games. Farhad Ghassemi

Preliminary Notions in Game Theory

Advanced Micro 1 Lecture 14: Dynamic Games Equilibrium Concepts

Microeconomic Theory III Final Exam March 18, 2010 (80 Minutes)

Comparing Allocations under Asymmetric Information: Coase Theorem Revisited

Economics 502 April 3, 2008

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

Université du Maine Théorie des Jeux Yves Zenou Correction de l examen du 16 décembre 2013 (1 heure 30)

CMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 16. Behavioral vs. Mixed Strategies

Games of Incomplete Information ( 資訊不全賽局 ) Games of Incomplete Information

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12

1 Solutions to Homework 4

Finitely repeated simultaneous move game.

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

Game Theory: Global Games. Christoph Schottmüller

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE doi /mnsc ec

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

Dynamic games with incomplete information

SI 563 Homework 3 Oct 5, Determine the set of rationalizable strategies for each of the following games. a) X Y X Y Z

Microeconomics Comprehensive Exam

PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV

Game Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Repeated Games

Supplementary Material for: Belief Updating in Sequential Games of Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of a Crisis Bargaining

An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]

GAME THEORY. Department of Economics, MIT, Follow Muhamet s slides. We need the following result for future reference.

Jianfei Shen. School of Economics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

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

Econ 618 Simultaneous Move Bayesian Games

Problem Set 2 - SOLUTIONS

Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5

OPTIMAL BLUFFING FREQUENCIES

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

PROBLEM SET 6 ANSWERS

MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

ECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games

Sequential-move games with Nature s moves.

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

Outline for today. Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 13: General-Sum Games. General-sum games. General-sum games. Dominated pure strategies

February 23, An Application in Industrial Organization

Handout on Rationalizability and IDSDS 1

March 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?

Lecture Notes on Adverse Selection and Signaling

w E(Q w) w/100 E(Q w) w/

Problem Set 5 Answers

Corporate Control. Itay Goldstein. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Games with Private Information 資訊不透明賽局

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers

In the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Microeconomics 2. Graduate School of Management and Economics. Dr. S.

Strategic Pre-Commitment

A Decision Analysis Approach To Solving the Signaling Game

HE+ Economics Nash Equilibrium

G5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017

Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games

Best-Reply Sets. Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis. This version: May 2015

Game Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I

Midterm #2 EconS 527 [November 7 th, 2016]

Transcription:

ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium Let us consider the following sequential game with incomplete information. Two players are playing the following super-simple poker game. The first player gets his cards, and obviously he is the only one who can observe them. He can either get a High hand or a Low hand, with equal probabilities. After observing his hand, he must decide whether to (let us imagine that he is betting a fixed amount of a dollar), or from the game. If he resigns, both when he has a High and a Low hand, his payoff is zero, and player 2 gets a dollar. If he bets, player 2 must decide whether to or from the game. Obviously, player makes his choice without being able to observe player s hands, but only observing that player s. 2,, 2

. Separating PBE where player s when having a High hand, and s when having a Low hand: (, ) Reasonable! 2,, 2 a) Player 2 s beliefs (responder beliefs) in this separating PBE After observing, =, intuitively indicating that P2 believes that a can only originate from a P with a High hand. (Graphically, this implies that P2 believes to be in the upper node of the information set.) b) Given player 2 s beliefs, which is player 2 s optimal action, after observing that player bets? Given the above beliefs, P2 s optimal response is to, since 0>-. o You can shade the branch for P2, for both types of P (something P2 cannot distinguish). c) Given the previous points, what is player s optimal action (whether to or ) when he has a High hand? What is his optimal action when having a Low hand? When P has a High hand, P prefers to (as prescribed in this strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so () exceeds that from ing (0). When P has a Low hand, P prefers to (deviating from the prescribed strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so () exceeds that from ing (0). d) Can this separating strategy profile be supported as a PBE from your answer in c)? No, because P prefers to regardless of his hand, contradicting the separating strategy profile (, ). 2

2. Separating PBE where player s when having a High hand, and s when having a Low hand: (, ) Crazy! 2,, 2 a) Player 2 s beliefs (responder beliefs) in this separating PBE After observing, =0, intuitively indicating that P2 believes that a can only originate from a P with a Low hand. o (Graphically, this implies that P2 believes to be in the lower node of the information set.) b) Given player 2 s beliefs, which is player 2 s optimal action, after observing that player bets? Given the above beliefs, P2 s optimal response is to, since 2>0. o You can shade the branch for P2, for both types of P (something P2 cannot distinguish). c) Given the previous points, what is player s optimal action (whether to or ) when he has a High hand? What is his optimal action when having a Low hand? When P has a High hand, P prefers to (deviating from the prescribed strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so (2, given that he anticipates P2 will ) exceeds his payoff from ing (0). When P has a Low hand, P prefers to (deviating from the prescribed strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so (0) exceeds his payoff from ting (-). d) Can this separating strategy profile be supported as a PBE from your answer in c)? No, since P has incentives to deviate from the prescribed strategy profile, both when he has a High hand (he prefers to ) and when he has a Low hand (he prefers to ). 3

3. Pooling PBE with both types of player playing : (, ) 2,, 2 a) Player 2 s beliefs (responder beliefs) in this pooling PBE After observing, his beliefs are 2 2 2 2 2 Intuitively indicating that P2 s beliefs coincide with the prior probability distribution over types, i.e.,. b) Given player 2 s beliefs, which is player 2 s optimal action, after observing that player bets? In order to examine which is P2 s response to, we must separately find his expected utility from and, as follows 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 Implying that P2 prefers to since his expected utility is higher. o You can shade the branch for P2, for both types of P (something P2 cannot distinguish). c) Given the previous points, what is player s optimal action (whether to or ) when he has a High hand? What is his optimal action when having a Low hand? 4

When P has a High hand, P prefers to (as prescribed in this strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so (2, given that he anticipates P2 will ) exceeds his payoff from ing (0). When P has a Low hand, P prefers to (deviating from the prescribed strategy profile) since his payoff from doing so (0) exceeds his payoff from ting (-). d) Can this pooling strategy profile with both types of player playing be supported as a PBE from your answer in c)? No, because P prefers to when he has a Low hand, as described in the previous point, contradicting the prescribed pooling strategy profile where both types of P. 5

4. Pooling PBE with both types of player playing : (, ) 2,, 2 a) Player 2 s beliefs (responder beliefs) in this pooling PBE After observing (something that occurs off-the-equilibrium path, as indicated in the figure), P2 s beliefs are 2 0 2 0 2 0 and thus beliefs must be left undefined, i.e.,. 0 0 b) Given player 2 s beliefs, which is player 2 s optimal action, after observing that player bets? In order to examine which is P2 s response to, we must separately find his expected utility from and, as follows 2 23 00 0 Implying that P2 prefers to if and only if 230, or. Hence, we will need to divide our subsequent analysis into two cases: o Case :, entailing that P2 responds ing if he observes. o Case 2:, entailing that P2 responds ing if he observes. 6

CASE : 2,, 2 Let us now check if this pooling strategy profile can be sustained as a PBE in this case ( ): When P has a High hand, he prefers to, since his payoff from doing so (2) is larger than that from Rosining (0). We don t even need to check the case in which P has a Low hand, since the above argument already shows that the pooling strategy profile cannot be sustained as a PBE when. 7

CASE 2: 2,, 2 Let us now check if this pooling strategy profile can be sustained as a PBE in this case ( ): When P has a High hand, he prefers to, since his payoff from doing so () is larger than that from Rosining (0). We don t even need to check the case in which P has a Low hand, since the above argument already shows that the pooling strategy profile cannot be sustained as a PBE when. Then, the pooling strategy profile where P s both when his hand is High and Low cannot be sustained as a PBE, regardless of P2 s off-the-equilibrium beliefs. Notice that this implies that we have ruled out all pure strategy equilibria (either separating or pooling) and we must now move to check for semi-separating equilibria. 8

5. SEMI-Separating PBE where player bets when having a High hand, and bets with a certain probability when having a Low hand: (, in mixed strategies) o First, note that is a strictly dominant strategy for P when he has a High hand. Indeed, his payoff from doing so (either 2 or, depending on whether P2 calls or folds) is strictly higher than his payoff from ing. o However, is not necessarily a dominant strategy for P when he has a Low hand. He prefers to if he anticipates that P2 will, but prefers to if P2 s. o Intuitively, P2 has incentives to call a originating from a P with a Low hand. As a consequence, P doesn t want to convey his type to P2, but instead to conceal it so that P2 s. The way in which P can conceal his type is by randomizing his ting strategy, as described in the figure., p H q q 2,, p L q q, 2 a) What are player 2 s beliefs () that support the fact that player 2 is mixing? That is, what is the value of that makes player 2 indifferent between and? Player 2 must be mixing. If he If he wasn't, player could anticipate his action and play pure strategies as in any of the above strategy profiles (which are not PBE of the game, as we just showed). Hence, player 2 must be indifferent between and, as follows 2 0 which implies that. Hence, P2 s beliefs in this semi-separating PBE must satisfy. 9

b) Given player 2 s beliefs, write Bayes rule, taking into account that player will always bet when having a High hand, but that he will mix (with probability p L ) when having a Low hand. Now, we must use player 2's beliefs that we found in the previous step,, in order to find what mixed strategy player uses. For that, we use Bayes' rule as follows: 2 3 2 2 2 where denotes the probability with which P s when he has a High hand, and similarly represents the probability that P s when he has a Low hand. Since we know that given that P always s when he has a High hand (he s using pure strategies), then the above ratio becomes 2 3 2 2 2 c) What is the value of p L that satisfies the expression you wrote in question b)? Solving for the only unknown in this equality,, we obtain. o Hence, at this stage of our solution we know everything regarding player : he s with probability when he has a Low hand and s using pure strategies (with 00% probability) when he has a High hand, i.e.,. d) What is player 2 s probability of calling (let us denoted by q) makes player indifferent between and when he has a Low hand? If player mixes with probability when he has a Low hand, it must be that player 2 makes him indifferent between ting and ing. That is, q(-)+(-q)=0 Solving for q, we obtain that P2 randomizes with probability, i.e., he s with probability 50%. (Notice that now we are done: from questions b and c we had all the information we needed about P s behavior, while from question d we obtained all necessary information about P2's actions.) e) Summarize, with all your previous results, the Semi-Separating PBE of this poker game. s when he has a High hand with full probability,, whereas he s when he has a Low hand with probability. Player 2 s with probability, and his beliefs are. 0