Dimitrios and Ameera work for an international investment bank as foreign exchange traders. They are being questioned by the police on their suspected involvement in a series of market manipulation trades. The table below shows the cost of each strategy (in terms of the length in years of jail sentences they will receive), depending on whether they accuse each other or deny the crime. The first number is the payoff to Dimitrios, while the second number is the payoff to Ameera (the negative numbers signify losses). Assume that the game is a simultaneous one- shot game. Ameera Deny Accuse -2 -2 -15 -15 -8 -8 Based on this information, we can conclude that: Both traders will hold out and deny their involvement. Both traders will accuse each other, even though they will end up being in jail for eight years. Ameera will deny, whatever she expects Dimitrios to do. Dimitrios Accuse Deny

Dimitrios and Ameera work for an international investment bank as foreign exchange traders. They are being questioned by the police on their suspected involvement in a series of market manipulation trades. The table below shows the cost of each strategy (in terms of the length in years of jail sentences they will receive), depending on whether they accuse each other or deny the crime. The first number is the payoff to Dimitrios, while the second number is the payoff to Ameera (the negative numbers signify losses). Assume that the game is a simultaneous one- shot game. Ameera Deny Accuse -2 -2 -15 -15 -8 -8 Based on this information, we can conclude that: Both traders will hold out and deny their involvement. Both traders will accuse each other, even though they will end up being in jail for eight years. Ameera will deny, whatever she expects Dimitrios to do. Dimitrios Accuse Deny

Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies and Tactics (MindTap Course List)

14th Edition

ISBN:9781305506381

Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris

Publisher:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris

Chapter15A: Auction Design And Information Economics

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 10E

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.
Each actor has two possible actions: reduce greenhouse-gas emissions or increase emissions. Each player's payoffs for various combinations of actions are shown in the cells: by convention, the row player (EU)'s payoffs are shown first, and the column player (China)'s payoffs are shown second. Based on this matrix, which of the following statements are true? A.The EU is better off reducing its emissions, but only if China also reduces its emissions B. China is better off increasing its emissions, but only if the EU also increases its emissions C.Both China and the EU are better off increasing their emissions, whatever the other player does D.All of the above E.None of the above
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. Suppose that Player 1 chooses his strategy (10, 20 or 30), first, and subsequently, and after observing Player 1’s choice, Player 2 chooses his own strategy (of 10, 20 or 30). Which of the following statements is true regarding this modified game? I. It is a simultaneous move game, because the timing of moves is irrelevant in classifying games.II. It is a sequential move game, because Player 2 observes Player 1’s choice before he chooses his own strategy.III. This modification gives Player 1 a ‘first mover advantage’. A) I and IIB) II and IIIC) I and IIID) I onlyE) II only
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…
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?)
Boris and Angela are negotiating a new trade deal, which resembles a modified centipede game. When it is their turn, each of them decides whether to cooperate (C) or to decline (D). Unfortunately, Angela is not sure how much time Boris has for the negotiations before he needs to leave to talk to Emmanuel. With probability p = 4/5, Boris will stay and insist on making the final proposal (long game, L). With probability 1 − p = 1/5, Boris will have to rush off, so that the game ends after Angela’s move (short game, S). Boris has perfect knowledge of his schedule. The structure and payoffs are represented in the game tree below (Attached picture). (a) Specify the set of possible histories H of the game. Underline terminal histories.(b) Specify the set of possible strategies for Boris and Angela.(c) How many subgames does this game have? Indicate all subgames in this game
Consider the “trust game” discussed in class. The first player starts with a $100 endowment and chooses how much to give to the second player. The gift triples in value (i.e. if $20 is given, the second player receives $60). The second player then chooses how much to give back. The first player receives exactly how much is returned (i.e. if $40 is returned, the first player receives $40). The Nash equilibrium of the game is: Group of answer choices: -First player gives $100, second player returns nothing. -First player gives $50, second player returns $50. -First player gives $100, second player returns $300. -There is no Nash equilibrium of this game. -First player gives nothing, second player returns nothing.
Consider a modification of driving conventions, shown in the figure below, in which each player has a third strategy: to zigzag on the road. Suppose that if a player chooses zigzag, the chances of an accident are the same whether the other player drives on the left, drives on the right, or zigzags as well. Let that payoff be 0, so that it lies between –1, the payoff when a collision occurs for sure, and 1, the payoff when a collision does not occur. Find all Nash equilibria.
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…
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.
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)
We have a group of three friends: Kramer, Jerry and Elaine. Kramer has a $10 banknote that he will auction off, and Jerry and Elaine will be bidding for it. Jerry and Elaine have to submit their bids to Kramer privately, both at the same time. We assume that both Jerry and Elaine only have $2 that day, and the available strategies to each one of them are to bid either$0, $1 or $2. Whoever places the highest bid, wins the $10 banknote. In case of a tie (that is, if Jerry and Elaine submit the same bid), each one of them gets $5. Regardless of who wins the auction, each bidder has to pay to Kramer whatever he or she bid. Does this game have a Nash Equilibrium? (If not, why not? If yes, what is the Nash Equilibrium?)