8. Which of the fllowin statements isfalse?a. Acordig to he reuls o te ooperaiv, alenaing ofr gm, plyrs agre on the quilibiumallocation of he upus in te fistround. This holds frthe 2 priod altemating ofer game justaswll asthem-period version of the same game.b. Intheinfie pro, dlemaing ofer aganin game, aplayr's aloctio shouk e iversely prporioa tohis or her iscount rate or ate of impatience.c. Thenoncoopentive gametheor aproachto argaining omplemens the coperativ aproch sine i elsusundersand the posile statagis ehind suchallocatons and soutions as iven, for cample,by the Nashbagaining rule.d. Inth ulimatum or picho-ol game,the subgame perfec quilibrumis to plit vrythin fityfiy.

Game theory refers to the study of strategic interactions between the players in which the choices…

8. Which of thefllowingsatemens is fale? a. Accordingto the esuls o he oncooperativ, alenatingofer game, player agre n the quilbrium allocation of he suplus in te fistround. This holds fr the 2 prid altemating offe game just aswll as he n-period version of the same game. b. Inthe ininite pro, lenting oferbarganing game, playr's loctio should be inesly prporioa to his or her discount rate or ate of impatience. 6. The nonopertive gaethor aroac to arganin complemens th coperatv aproac sie help us understand the posblestrtogies bhind suchallocatons and solutons as gvn, for cample,by te Nash bagaining nule. d. In the lintum or plitcho dolargam, h sugame perfect qulibrium is to plit verythin fityfiy.

8. Which of thefllowingsatemens is fale? a. Accordingto the esuls o he oncooperativ, alenatingofer game, player agre n the quilbrium allocation of he suplus in te fistround. This holds fr the 2 prid altemating offe game just aswll as he n-period version of the same game. b. Inthe ininite pro, lenting oferbarganing game, playr's loctio should be inesly prporioa to his or her discount rate or ate of impatience. 6. The nonopertive gaethor aroac to arganin complemens th coperatv aproac sie help us understand the posblestrtogies bhind suchallocatons and solutons as gvn, for cample,by te Nash bagaining nule. d. In the lintum or plitcho dolargam, h sugame perfect qulibrium is to plit verythin fityfiy.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

1) What are the Nash equilibria? Which one is unreasonable/non-credible threat? 2) What are the subgame perfect Nash equilibria? Does SPNE concept eliminate the unreasonable Nash equilibrium?
Bob is playing 1/4 L + 3/4 R. What is Ann's expected payoff of playing D? Game Bob L RAnn U 10,-1 0, 1 D 4, 1 8, -1
The prisoners' dilemma is a two-person game illus·trating thata. t he cooperative outcome could be worse for bothpeople than t he Nash equilibrium.b . even if the cooperative outcome is better than theNash equilibrium for one person, it might be worsefor the other.c. even if cooperation is better than the Nash equilibrium,each person might have an incentive not tocooperate.d . rational, seff·interested individuals will naturallyavoid the Nash equilibrium because it is worse forboth of them.
12. Consider a game where each player picks a number from 0 to 60. The guess that is closest to half ofthe average of the chosen numbers wins a prize. If several peopleare equally close, then they share theprize. The game theory implies that (A) all players have dominant strategies to choose 0 (B) all players have dominant strategies to choose 30 (C) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick 0 (D) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick positive numbers 13. Behavioral data in such games suggests that (A) most subjects choose 0; (B) most subjects choose 30; (C) common answers include 30, 15, 7.5, and 0; (D) most subjects use randomization. Can you help me answer number 13 please?
Consider the location game we covered in Lecture 3. Now assume there arethree players (vendors). As we assumed in the lecture, consumers in each area choosethe closest vendor and if there are multiple closest vendors then these vendors receiveequal share of consumers in the area. Notice Si = {1, 2, 3, ...., 9} for i = 1, 2, 3. Here aresome examples of payoffs: u1(1, 1, 1) = 3, u1(1, 1, 9) = u2(1, 1, 9) = 2.25, u3(1, 1, 9) =4.5, u1(1, 5, 9) = u3(1, 5, 9) = 2.5 and u2(1, 5, 9) = 4. (a) Is s′1 = 1 strictly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(b) Is s′1 = 1 weakly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(c) Can you find a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies?
64. (This problem assumes knowledge of the basic rulesof baseball.) George Lindsey (1959) looked at boxscores of more than 1000 baseball games and foundthe expected number of runs scored in an inning foreach on-base and out situation to be as listed in the fileP09_64.xlsx. For example, if a team has a man on firstbase with one out, it scores 0.5 run on average untilthe end of the inning. You can assume throughout thisproblem that the team batting wants to maximize theexpected number of runs scored in the inning.a. Use this data to explain why, in most cases,bunting with a man on first base and no outs isa bad decision. In what situation might buntingwith a man on first base and no outs be a gooddecision?b. Assume there is a man on first base with one out.What probability of stealing second makes an attempted steal a good idea?
3. Suppose that the various Balls of basketball or internet fame Lavar, Lamelo, Liangelo, Lonzo,and Spalding are considering playing in a 1-on-1 tournament. They get a payoff of 0 if theydecide not to participate. The following table illustrates their payoffs across the variousscenarios. 1 Player 2 Players 3 Players 4 Players 5 Players Lavar 10 4 2 -2 -5 Lamelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Liangelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Lonzo 10 8 7 6 5 Spalding 10 9 8 7 6 a. Find and describe all pure strategy Nash Equilibria.b. Suppose now Spalding, since it is in fact a literal basketball, gets a payoff of 0 in anycircumstance, being an inanimate object. The table is now as follows: 1 Player 2 Players 3 Players 4Players 5 Players Lavar 10 4 2 -2 -5 Lamelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Liangelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Lonzo 10 8 7 6 5 Spalding 0 0 0 0 0 Find and describe all pure strategy Nash Equilibria.
Suppose that the University of Alabama and Clemson are making spending decisions for theupcoming year. Assume that Alabama is currently spending $15 million on their recruiting andfacilities, and Clemson is spending $10 million. Each team has an additional $5 million to spendor keep as profits. If they both choose to not spend the additional $5 million then Alabama hasa 60% chance of getting the highest quality quarterback recruit to commit to them (getting thecommitment of the player is the goal). However, if they both choose to spend the additional $5million then there is a 57% chance that Alabama gets the high quality quarterback to commit. IfAlabama spends the additional $5 million but Clemson doesn’t then there is a 67% chanceAlabama gets the recruit. However, if Alabama does NOT spend the additional $5million butClemson does then there is a 50% change either team gets the recruit’s commitment. Setup thepayoff matrix and label the players, their strategies, and their payoffs, and…
Hello, In a) I get qi=2, price=3 and profiti= 4. I had a question on (b), I attached my answer in handwritten, is it correct to do it by showing Lemma 1 result? It is so confusing. So, based on this with q(bar) as capacity constrained, and they are not gigantic capacity, I assumed it is played under pure strategy equilibrium of pricing game. Hence, the "optimal price = market-clearing" price is a Nash Equilibria as in Lemma 1. Pls, can you help me with (b)? Thanks
2. Consider a game that game theory people refer to as the “ultimatum game.”We will refer to our two players as the “offerer” and the “decider”. How the gameworks is that the offerer proposes a way to split $1000 between the two players.While this could be done in a variety of ways, we will assume that the offerersonly has two possible proposals: Either a 50-50 split, or she offers the decider$50 and keeps the rest. The decider can either accept or reject the offer. If the offer is accepted, the money is split as proposed. If the offer is rejected, themoney spontaneously combusts and nobody gets anything. a) List the strategies for each player and write an extensive form version of thegame with payouts. b) List all the Nash equilibria of this game. c) Explain which, if any of the Nash equilibrium are not sub-game perfect. d) Write the game out in normal form and find the pure strategy Nashequilibrium. Explain how this matches with your answers to (b) and (c) . Alsoexplain why there…
Consider the following coordination game: Player 2P1 Comedy Show Concert Comedy Show 11,5 0,0 Concert 0,0 2,2 a. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) for this game.b. Now assume Player 1 and Player 2 have distributional preferences. Specifically, both people greatly care about the utility of the other person. In fact, they place equal weight on their outcome and the other person’soutcome, ρ = σ = ½. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) with these utilitarianpreferences.c. Now consider the case where Player1 and Player2 do not like each other. Specifically, any positive outcome for the other person is viewed as anegative outcome for the individual, ρ = σ = -1. Find the Nashequilibrium(s) with these envious preferences.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors game has a maximin solution. O. TRUE or O. FALSE?