D с D с 2,2 3, -1 -1, 3 0,0 Which of the following is FALSE for the grim trigger strategy and the infinite horizon repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game illustrated above? A. In the grim trigger strategy profile, if a player chooses D in a period, then both players chooses D forever after that period B. The threshold discount factor for sustaining cooperation under grim trigger strategy depends on the utility numbers in the stage game C. If all utility numbers remain the same but 3 is replaced by 5 in the stage game, then cooperation CANNOT be sustained in this game for all possible values of the discount factor

D с D с 2,2 3, -1 -1, 3 0,0 Which of the following is FALSE for the grim trigger strategy and the infinite horizon repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game illustrated above? A. In the grim trigger strategy profile, if a player chooses D in a period, then both players chooses D forever after that period B. The threshold discount factor for sustaining cooperation under grim trigger strategy depends on the utility numbers in the stage game C. If all utility numbers remain the same but 3 is replaced by 5 in the stage game, then cooperation CANNOT be sustained in this game for all possible values of the discount factor

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.9P

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 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.
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.
Find all NE of the stage game.(b) Consider a two-period game without discounting in which the stage game is played ineach period. Find all pure strategy SPNE.(c) What’s the min-max payoff of each player?(c1) Consider pure strategies only.(c2) Consider all strategies, including the mixed ones.(d) Now suppose the stage game is repeated infinitely many times. Use the Fudenberg-Maskin Folk theorem to find all possible values of payoff that can be supported as aSPNE.
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.
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.
Suppose O2 and Vodafone are the only two telecommunicationscompanies in UK. Both companies are considering whether ornot to stop offering unlimited data plans. Each company has twostrategies: stop or don’t stop. The first entry in the brackets is the payoffsof O2 and the second entry is the payoffs of Vodafone, both in $million.What will be the dominant strategies of O2 and Vodafone and what willbe the Nash equilibrium? Explain your answers.
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.
(a) Assuming that each fishery chooses fi ∈ (0,F), to maximize its payoff function, derive the players’ best response functions and find a Nash equilibrium. (b) Is the equilibrium you found in (a) unique or not? What are equilibrium payoffs? (c) Suppose that a benevolent social planner wants maximize the util- ity of both fisheries. In other words, the social planner solves the following problem: max w(f1, f2) = u1(f1, f2) + u2(f1, f2) (f1 ,f2 )= 2ln(f1)+2ln(f2)+2ln(F −f1 −f2). Find the social planner’s solution. (d) What are the fisheries’ payoffs if the quantities of fish they catch are solutions to the social planner’s problem? What can you say about the Nash equilibrium quantities of fish being caught as compared to the social planner’s solution? (e) If fishery j decides to follow the recommendation of the social planner, how much fish will firm i catch?
** Please be advsed that this is practice only from previous yeasr *** Answers: (a) There are no Nash equilibria.(b) There are two pure strategy Nash equilibra, one with (H,H) and another with (L,L), and no mixed strategy Nash equilibria.(c) There are two pure strategy Nash equilibra, one with (H,H) and another with (L,L), and one mixed strategy Nash equilibria with p = 1/2 and q = 1/2.(d) There are two pure strategy Nash equilibra, one with (H,H) and another with (L,L), and one mixed strategy Nash equilibria with p = 1/2 and q = 3/4.(e) There are two pure strategy Nash equilibra, one with (H,H) and another with (L,L), and one mixed strategy Nash equilibria with p = 3/4 and q = 1/2.
Compare and contrast the Winning Strategy Theorem and the Equilibrium ExistenceTheorem Describe the hypotheses and the conclusions of each theorem. Whichresult (if either) has more demanding hypotheses? Which (if either) has more powerfulconclusions? Is one of these two theorems logically stronger than the other? Explain.What is the significance of each result, both for the application of game theory to realworld problems and for the historical development of the subject? Give one or moreoriginal examples to show how these theorems can be used in practice.