Consider the strategic voting game discussed at the end of 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 first considering the dominated strategies of player L. (Basically, the question is asking you to find the outcome of the iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies)

Consider the strategic voting game discussed at the end of 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 first considering the dominated strategies of player L. (Basically, the question is asking you to find the outcome of the iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies)

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.1P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Consider a modified Traveler’s Dilemma. In terms of strategy options that the players have and the dollars they earn, it is like the standard Traveler’s Dilemma, but the players do not have endless appetite for money. Up to 100 dollars, each dollar feels like a dollar. But any moneybeyond 100 is psychologically like 100 dollars. Assuming that players are maximizers of ‘psychological’ dollars instead of real dollars, describe all the Nash equilibria of this modified Traveler’s Dilemma.
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)
Consider a variant of the three player majority game we introduced in class. The three players, 1, 2, and 3, again need to decide how to allocate one unit of resources amongst themselves by voting. However, now player 1 has 1 vote, player 2 has 2 votes, and player 3 has 3 votes. To pass a proposed allocation, at least five votes are required. So, any coalition that does not possess at least five votes has only one action that gives each of its members zero resources, while any coalition that does possess at least five votes can choose any allocation of the one unit of resources amongst its members (e.g., an action of the grand coalition is simply an allocation (x1, x2, x3) such that xi ≥ 0 for all i is the portion of resources allocated to player i and x1 + x2 + x3 ≤ 1). Find the core of this game.
In the attached table determine, for each player, whether any action is strictly or weakly dominated. Justify youranswer. Find the Nash equilibria of the game and determine whether any equilibrium is strict.
Suppose two players play a two-period repeated game, where the stage game is the normal-form game shown below. Is there a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in which the players select (A, X) in the first period? If so, fully describe such equilibrium. If not, explain why not. Player 1 has choice A, B; Player 2 has choice X, Y, Z. Payoff: (A,X)-(5,7), (A,Y)-(2,4), (A,Z)-(3,8), (B,X)-(1,4), (B,Y)-(3,5), (B,Z)-(1,4)
PLAYER B LEFT RIGHT UP 5 FOR A, 30 FOR B 10 FOR A, 12 FOR B PLAYER A DOWN -2 FOR A, 10 FOR B 8 FOR A, 15 FOR B In the above game, the players are seeking to maximize the number they recieve. They choose at the same time. What is the Nash equillibrium? Player A will choose UP and player B will choose LEFT Player A will UP and player B will choose RIGHT Player A will choose DOWN and player B will choose LEFT Player A will choose DOWN and player B will choose RIGHT Player A will choose LEFT and player B will choose UP Player A will choose LEFT and player B will choose DOWN Player A will choose RIGHT and player B will choose UP Player A will choose RIGHT and player B will choose DOWN
Consider the following two person game. Player 1 begins the game by choosing A or B. If Player 1 chooses A the game ends and Player 1 receives $100 and Player 2 receives $100. If Player 1 chooses B then Player 2 must choose C or D. If Player 2 chooses C then Player 1 receives $150 and Player 2 receives $250. If Player 2 chooses D then Player 1 receives $0 and Player 2 receives $400. Draw the complete game tree for this situation. Be sure to accurately label the tree and include the payoffs. Using backwards induction (look forward and reason backwards) determine the rational outcome to this game. Given how experimental subjects have behaved in the Ultimatum game, provide a behavioral explanation for why an “average” Player 1 and 2 might deviate from the rational prediction.
True or False?: (Recall that a strategic game is called Dominance Solvable if and only if exactlyone action profile remains after iteratively eliminating all strictly dominated actions.)If a strategic game is dominance solvable, it can have at most one Nash equilibrium.
Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections, so their votes “cancel each other out.” They each gain 10 units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose 10 units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each 5 units of utility. The following matrix summarizes the strategies for both Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward. Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix. For example, in the top left cell, fill in the payoffs for Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward if they both vote. (Hint: Be sure to enter a minus sign if the payoff is negative.) Mrs. Ward Vote Don't Vote Mr. Ward Vote Mr. Ward: , Mrs. Ward Mr. Ward: , Mrs. Ward Don't Vote Mr. Ward: , Mrs. Ward Mr. Ward: , Mrs. Ward
Suppose that 5 risk neutral competitors participate in a rent seeking game with a fixed prize of $100. Each player may invest as much as he wishes in the political contest, although those investments have an opportunity cost equal 1. The probability of winning is directly proportional to the candidate’s share of the total rent-seeking investment. What is the profit-maximizing investment by player 1 as a function of the investment by all the others? What is a Nash equilibrium investment by each player in a symmetric game?
Consider the bargaining problem of splitting a pie of size 1 with utility u(x1) = x1 for player 1 and v(x2) = 2x2 − x22 for player 2, where x1 and x2 denote the share of the pie for player 1 and 2 respectively. a) Consider the bargaining problem of the two players. Find the utility possibility frontier S. b) What is the Nash bargaining solution for this problem (i.e., on which division of the pie (?₁,?₂) will players agree), if the disagreement outcome (the utilities players obtain in case of disagreement) is d1 = d2 = 0? c) What is the Nash bargaining solution if the disagreement outcome is any d1 and d2 in S?
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?