Consider the following game. You will roll a fair, 6-sided die either once or twice. You decide whether to do the second roll after you see how the first one lands. The payoff is $n, where n is the outcome of the last roll. For example, if the first roll lands 4 and the second lands 2, you win $2. If you only do one roll and it lands 4, you win $4. Suppose you make your decision about whether to go for a second roll based on expected monetary value. Then you will go for a second roll if (and only if) the first roll lands x or lower. What is x?

Consider the following game. You will roll a fair, 6-sided die either once or twice. You decide whether to do the second roll after you see how the first one lands. The payoff is $n, where n is the outcome of the last roll. For example, if the first roll lands 4 and the second lands 2, you win $2. If you only do one roll and it lands 4, you win $4. Suppose you make your decision about whether to go for a second roll based on expected monetary value. Then you will go for a second roll if (and only if) the first roll lands x or lower. What is x?

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.7P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

answer the ff: Suppose that each company cancharge either a high price for tickets or a low price. Ifone company charges $300, it earns low profit if theother company also charges $300 and high profit ifthe other company charges $600. On the other hand,if the company charges $600, it earns very low profit ifthe other company charges $300 and medium profitif the other company also charges $600.a. Draw the decision box for this game.b. What is the Nash equilibrium in this game?Explain.c. Is there an outcome that would be better than theNash equilibrium for both airlines? How could itbe achieved? Who would lose if it were achieved?
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?
A game is played as follows: First Player 1 decides (Y or N) whether or not to play.If she chooses N, the game ends. If she chooses Y, then Player 2 decides (Y or N) whetheror not to play. If he chooses N the game ends. If he chooses Y, then they go ahead and playanother game with the payoffs shown below. A player who opts out by choosing N gets 2 andthe other player gets 0. Draw the tree of this game and then find the two subgame-perfect Nashequilibria.
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 following simultaneous move game: a. What is the maximum amount player 1 should be willing to pay for the opportunity to move first instead of moving at the same time as player 2? Explain carefully. b. What is the maximum amount player 2 should be willing to spend to keep player 1 from getting to move first?
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.
a) Find the Nash equilibria in the game (in pure and mixed strategies) and the associated payoffs for the players. b) Now assume that the game is extended in the following way: in the beginning Player 1 can decide whether to opt out (this choice is denoted by O) or whether to play the simultaneous-move game in a) (this choice is denoted by G). If Player 1 opts out (plays O) then both Player 1 and Player 2 get a payoff of 4 each and the game ends. If Player 1 decides to play G, then the simultaneous-move game is played. Find the pure-strategy Nash equilibria in this extended version of the game. (Hint: note that Player 1 now has 4 strategies and write the game up in a 4x2 matrix.) c) Write the game in (b) up in extensive form (a game tree). Identify the subgames of this game.
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.
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?
1. Ten commuters must decide simultaneously in the morning to use route A or route B to go from home (same place for all) to work (ditto). If a of them use route A, each of them will travel for 10a + 40 minutes; if b of them use route B, each of them will travel for 10b minutes. Everyone wishes to minimize his/her commuting time. a) Describe the pure Nash equilibrium (or Nash equilibria) of this ten-person game. Compute the corresponding profile of commuting times. Explicitly list all equilibrium conditions that are satisfied.
Consider the game with the payoffs below. Which of the possible outcomes are MORE efficient than the Nash Equilibrium (NE)? Note, they do NOT need to be Nash equilibria themselves, they just need to be more efficient than the NE. Multiple answers are possible, but not necessary. You need to check ALL correct answers for full credit. JILL High Medium LowMAGGIE Left 3,4 2,3 2,2Center 4,8 9,7 8,7Right 7,6 8,5 9,4Group of answer choices (Left, Low) There is no strategy combination that is more efficient than the Nash equilibrium for this game. (Right, Medium) (Left, High) (Center, Medium) (Center, High) (Center, Low) (Left, Medium) (Right, Low) (Right, High)
There are three players who must each choose an “effort” level from 1 to 7, that is, Si = {1, 2, 3, ..., 7}. The payoff for each player i is ui(si, s−i) = 10 max{s1, s2, s3} − si. How many pure- strategy Nash equilibria are there? Select one: a.2 b.4 c.none of the other answers d.3 e.1