Consider the following game. There are two players: an incumbent (denoted by I) and a potential entrant to the market (denoted by E). The entrant has two actions: it can either enter the market in which the incumbent operates, or not enter. The incumbent has two actions: it can either fight the entrant, or accommodate. The payoffs are as follows: if E enters and I fights, E gets -5 and I gets 5. If E enters and I accommodates, then both get the payoff 10. If E does not enter, I gets 20 and E gets 0. 1. Suppose that both players act simultaneously. Depict the game with the help of a game matrix. (a) Find the Nash equilibria in pure strategies. (b) Find the Nash equilibria mixed strategies. 2. Now suppose that E moves first, and then I follows.

Consider the following game. There are two players: an incumbent (denoted by I) and a potential entrant to the market (denoted by E). The entrant has two actions: it can either enter the market in which the incumbent operates, or not enter. The incumbent has two actions: it can either fight the entrant, or accommodate. The payoffs are as follows: if E enters and I fights, E gets -5 and I gets 5. If E enters and I accommodates, then both get the payoff 10. If E does not enter, I gets 20 and E gets 0. 1. Suppose that both players act simultaneously. Depict the game with the help of a game matrix. (a) Find the Nash equilibria in pure strategies. (b) Find the Nash equilibria mixed strategies. 2. Now suppose that E moves first, and then I follows.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.7P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Does each individual in a prisoners dilemma benefit more from cooperation or from pursuing self-interest? Explain briefly.
Consider the following game: Player 2 In Out Player 1 In -2,-2 2, 0 Out 0, 2 0, 0 (a) What is the Nash equilibrium of this game, or what are the Nash equilibriaof this game? (b) Does either firm have a dominate strategy (a strategy that is always abest response)? Which? (c) Suppose Player 1 could move before Player 2 and Player 2 could observe Player 1’s move. What do you think would happen?
. 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
For the operating systems game, let us now assume the intrinsic superiorityof Mac is not as great and that network effects are stronger for Windows.These modifications are reflected in different payoffs. Now, the payoff fromadopting Windows is 50 X w and from adopting Mac is 15 + 5 X m;n consumers are simultaneously deciding between Windows and Mac.a. Find all Nash equilibria.b. With these new payoffs, let us now suppose that a third option exists,which is to not buy either operating system; it has a payoff of 1,000.Consumers simultaneously decide among Windows, Mac, and nooperating system. Find all Nash equilibria.
Consider the following price game: Firm 1 Firm 2 High Low High 20, 20 12, 24 Low 24, 12 14, 14 Remark: In simultaneous move games (games with rows and columns) theconvention is to write the row player’s payoff first and the column player’spayoff second. (a) What is the Nash equilibrium of this game? Recall that for each playeryou should find the best response to each of the opponents’ strategies andunderline the associated payoff. Then look for a cell where both strategiesare best responses to each other. This is a Nash equilibrium. (b) Does either firm have a dominate strategy (a strategy that is always abest response)?
Consider the strategic voting game discussed at the endof this chapter, where we saw that the strategy profile (Bustamante, Schwarzenegger,Schwarzenegger) is a Nash equilibrium of the game. Show that (Bustamante, Schwarzeneg-ger, Schwarzenegger) is, in fact , the only rationalizable strategy profile. Do this by firstconsidering the dominated strategies of player L. (Basically, the question is asking youto find the outcome of the iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies)
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.
Two farmers have unlimited access to a common plot of land and can let their cows graze on it. The matrix below shows the benefits they get from grazing either 1 or 2+ cows on the land. Farmer 2 Farmer1 1 cow 2+ cows 1 cow 8,8 2,10 2+cows 10,2 4,4 What kind of game is this? What is/are the Nash equilibrium/equilibria? What is/are the Pareto efficient outcome(s) in this game? (Hint: Remember that Pareto efficiency occurs when no one person can be made better off without someone else being made worse off) The government offers a reward or subsidy for communities where farmers only allow 1 cow to graze on the common field, resulting in a new payoff matrix:…
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
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?
Consider the extensive form game portrayed below. The top number at aterminal node is player 1’s payoff, the middle number is player 2’s payoff,and the bottom number is player 3’s payoff.a. Derive the strategy set for each player. (Note: If you do not want to listall of the strategies, you can provide a general description of a player’sstrategy, give an example, and state how many strategies are in thestrategy set.)b. Derive all subgame perfect Nash equilibria. c. Derive a Nash equilibrium that is not a SPNE, and explain why it isnot a SPNE.
Consider Bernard \ Mary Left Center Right Top 0,5 1,0 2,2 Bottom 1,0 0,3 2,2 The first number in a cell denotes the payoff to Bernard and the second number denotes the payoff to MaryForexample: πB(B,L)=1and πM(T,L)=5. a Give all pure strategy Nash equilibria of this one-shot game, if any. Briefly explain.Let Bernard play Top with probability p and Bottom with probability 1 − p; let Mary play Left with probability qL , Center with probability qC and Right with probability qR = 1 − qL − qC . b Give all mixed strategy Nash equilibria of this game.