Amir and Beatrice play the following game. Amir offers an amount of money z € [0, 1] to Beatrice. Beatrice can either accept or reject. If Beatrice accepts, then Amir receives 1 - x dollars and Beatrice receives a dollars. If Beatrice rejects, then both receive no money. As in the Ultimatum Game, Amir cares only about maximizing the amount of money he receives. Beatrice, on the other hand, detests Amir, and therefore cares about the amount of money that both receive: if Amir receives y dollars and Beatrice receives z dollars, then Beatrice's payoff is a-ay where a > 0. (a) Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria of the game in which the two players choose simultaneously (thus Beatrice accepts or rejects without seeing Amir's offer). Solution: The NE are the strategy profiles in which Beatrice rejects and Amir's offer a satisfies 2-a(1-x) ≤0, i.e. x ≤a/(1+a). (b) Find all subgame perfect equilibria of the sequential game in which Amir first makes the offer and Beatrice observes the offer before choosing whether to accept or reject. Solution: There is a unique SPE given by Amir offering r* = a/(1+a), and Beatrice accepting any offer r≥a/(1+a) and rejecting any lower offer.

Amir and Beatrice play the following game. Amir offers an amount of money z € [0, 1] to Beatrice. Beatrice can either accept or reject. If Beatrice accepts, then Amir receives 1 - x dollars and Beatrice receives a dollars. If Beatrice rejects, then both receive no money. As in the Ultimatum Game, Amir cares only about maximizing the amount of money he receives. Beatrice, on the other hand, detests Amir, and therefore cares about the amount of money that both receive: if Amir receives y dollars and Beatrice receives z dollars, then Beatrice's payoff is a-ay where a > 0. (a) Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria of the game in which the two players choose simultaneously (thus Beatrice accepts or rejects without seeing Amir's offer). Solution: The NE are the strategy profiles in which Beatrice rejects and Amir's offer a satisfies 2-a(1-x) ≤0, i.e. x ≤a/(1+a). (b) Find all subgame perfect equilibria of the sequential game in which Amir first makes the offer and Beatrice observes the offer before choosing whether to accept or reject. Solution: There is a unique SPE given by Amir offering r* = a/(1+a), and Beatrice accepting any offer r≥a/(1+a) and rejecting any lower offer.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.9P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose Rashard and Alyssa are playing a game that requires both to simultaneously choose an action: Up or Down. The payoff matrix that follows shows the earnings of each person as a function of both of their choices. For example, the upper-right cell shows that if Rashard chooses Up and Alyssa chooses Down, Rashard will receive a payoff of 4 and Alyssa will receive a payoff of 5. Alyssa Up Down Rashard Up 8, 4 4, 5 Down 5, 4 6, 5 In this game, the only dominant strategy is for to choose . The outcome reflecting the unique Nash equilibrium in this game is as follows: Rashard chooses and Alyssa chooses.
. Find the Nash equilibrium of the following modified Rock-Paper-Scissors game: • When rock (R) beats scissors (S), the winner’s payoff is 10 and the loser’s payoff is −10. • When paper (P) beats rock, the winner’s payoff is 5 and the loser’s payoff is −5. • When scissors beats paper, the winner’s payoff is 2 and the loser’s payoff is −2. • In case of ties, both players receive 0 payoff. You are suposed to create a system of equations and then solve for them and find 3 probabilities- please show how to do that
Theo and Addy are deciding what toys to pick out at the toy store. Depending on what toys they pick, they can play different games together, but they can’t coordinate their choices. They can’t talk to one another at all until after that make their choice. Below is their payout matrix which shows their utility for each choice. All the bold figures are for Theo and all the non bold figures are for Addy. Addy Strategies Theo Strategies Toy Gas Pump Jump Rope Toy food 20 10 10 3 Ball 7 3 9 4 a) If Theo chooses Toy Food, what would be the possible outcomes for Addy? What would be best for Addy? b) If Addy chose a Toy Gas Pump, what are the possible outcomes for Theo? What would be best for Theo? c) Does Addy have a dominant strategy? If yes, what is her strategy? If not how can you tell? d) Does Theo have a dominant strategy? If yes, what is her strategy? If not how…
Consider the following game. There are two payers, Player 1 and Player 2. Player 1 chooses a row (10, 20, or 30), and Player 2 chooses a column (10/20/30). Payoffs are in the cells of the table, with those on the left going to Player 1 and those on the right going to player 2. For example, a payoff 100/200 would mean Player 1 receives 100 and Player 2 receives 200.What is [are] the Nash Equilibrium [Equilibria] of this game?A) (10/10) and (20/20)B) (30/30)C) (10/20) and (20/10)D) (20/20)E) (30/30)
Suppose that Teresa and Caroline are both in the public eye. They get offers to sell secrets of the other to tabloids. If both keep the secrets, they are both better off than if they get exposed. If only one is exposed, the other person is better off than if no one was exposed. Their payoffs from each option are given in the payoff matrix. Suppose that Caroline and Teresa play the game over four television seasons, where each season is a new game. Consider the scenarios. Remember, a tit‑for‑tat strategy is one where the person starts by cooperating and then plays whatever strategy the other firm played last. Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she and Teresa both play tit‑for‑tat? $_______ Over four seasons, how much does Caroline make if she always exposes and Teresa plays tit‑for‑tat? $________
Suppose that Teresa and Caroline are both in the public eye. They get offers to sell secrets of the other to tabloids. If both keep the secrets, they are both better off than if they get exposed. If only one is exposed, the other person is better off than if no one was exposed. Their payoffs from each option are given in the payoff matrix. Suppose that Caroline and Teresa play the game over four television seasons, where each season is a new game. Consider the scenarios. Remember, a tit‑for‑tat strategy is one where the person starts by cooperating and then plays whatever strategy the other firm played last. Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she plays a tit‑for‑tat strategy and Teresa always exposes? $_______ Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she and Teresa both always expose? $_________ Does Caroline have a dominant strategy when she and Teresa play for four seasons? No, there is no dominant strategy…
Roger and Rafael play a game with the following rules. Roger is given $250 to divide between himself and Rafael. Rafael does not get to choose but he can reject Roger’s offer if he does not like it. If Rafael rejects, both get nothing. If Rafael accepts, both get the split that Roger decided. a. What is this game called? b. Find all Nash equilibria for this game. c. When this game is played in the real world, do the predictions in part 1b materialize? Why/why not? d. Are all Nash equilibria in part 1b Pareto Optimal? Explain
Consider the following two-player game.First, player 1 selects a number x≥0. Player 2 observes x. Then, simultaneously andindependently, player 1 selects a number y1 and player 2 selects a number y2, at which pointthe game ends.Player 1’s payoff is: u1(x; y1) = −3y21 + 6y1y2 −13x2 + 8xPlayer 2’s payoff is: u2(y2) = 6y1y2 −6y22 + 12xy2Draw the game tree of this game and identify its Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium.
Three politicians are voting on whether to allow themselves a salary increase of$3,500per a year. If they vote in favor of a raise, then they lose some public support, costing them each$1,500 per year. The salary increase passes if two or more politicians vote in favor of it. What is this game’s Nash equilibrium (or equilibria)? Explain. There is no need to draw a payoff matrix.
In the collusion game, we found that collusion was only sustainable in the infinite horizon repeated game. One Nash Equilbrium of that game can be found when all players play a “grim trigger” strategy, where they collude until an opponent chooses to compete, and then compete for all future rounds as a punishment. In such a game, if the one period bonus that comes from competing is low enough, firms always collude and the punishment is never triggered. However, let’s think a little deeper about this Nash Equilibrium. Is the punishment (vowing to compete forever after one deviates) realistic, especially if firms can communicate freely? Why or why not? (Hint: Is a grim trigger Nash Equilibrium a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium? What kinds of Nash Equilibria does Subgame Perfection rule out in sequential games?)
True or False?Please Explain Thoroughly: In a Nash equilibrium of a strategic game, each player must best respond to her opponents’ actions, therefore, no other action profile can be unanimously preferredby all the players to a Nash equilibrium.
Consider the payoff matrix for a game depicted below. Player 1 selects the row and Player 2 selects the column. Up Down Left 1, -1 -1, 1 Right -1, 1 1, -1 What is (are) the Nash equilibrium (equilibria)? Question 18Answer a. Player 1 plays right; Player 2 plays down b. Player 1 plays left; Player 2 plays down c. Player 1 plays down; Player 2 plays left d. Player 1 plays right; Player 2 plays up e. Player 1 plays up; Player 2 plays left f. There is no Nash equilibrium g. Player 1 plays down; Player 2 plays right h. Player 1 plays up; Player 2 plays right i. Player 1 plays left; Player 2 plays up