In a small isolated town, there are two types of people, saints and crooks. In business dealings between any two residents of this town, the payoffs are below. Saint Crook Saint 7,7 0, 10 Crook 10, 0 -5,-5 What percentage of this town's residents would be saints in an evolutionary stable strategy? a) 62.50% b) 0% c) 15.30% d) 100% e) 87.50%

In a small isolated town, there are two types of people, saints and crooks. In business dealings between any two residents of this town, the payoffs are below. Saint Crook Saint 7,7 0, 10 Crook 10, 0 -5,-5 What percentage of this town's residents would be saints in an evolutionary stable strategy? a) 62.50% b) 0% c) 15.30% d) 100% e) 87.50%

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter18: Asymmetric Information

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 18.7P

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 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 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 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.
Consider the following variation to the Rock (R), Paper (P), Scissors (S) game:• Suppose that the Player 1 (row player) has a single type, Normal.• Player 2 (column player) has two types Normal and Simple.• A player of Normal type plays this zero-sum game as we studied in class whereas a player of type Simple always play P.• Player 2 knows whether he is Normal or Simple, but player 1does not.a) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 1/3 and of type Simple with probability (2/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.b) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 2/3 and of type Simple with probability (1/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.
It is the week before the Yule Ball Dance, and Victor and Ron are each contemplating whether to ask Hermione. As portrayed above, Victor moves first by deciding whether or not to approach Hermione. (Keep in mind that asking a girl to a dance is more frightening than a rogue bludger). If he gets up the gumption to invite her, then Hermione decides whether or not to accept the invitation and go with Victor. After Victor (and possibly Hermione) have acted, Ron decides whether to conquer his case of nerves (perhaps Harry can trick him by making him think he’s drunk Felix Felicis) and finally tell Hermione how he feels about her (and also invite her to the dance). However, note that his information set is such that he doesn’t know what has happened between Victor and Hermione. Ron doesn’t know whether Victor asked Hermione and, if Victor did, whether Hermione accepted. If Ron does invite Hermione and she is not going with Victor— either because Victor didn’t ask, or he did and she…
8. Two states, A and B, have signed an arms-control agreement. This agreementcommits them to refrain from building certain types of weapons. The agreement is supposed tohold for an indefinite length of time. However, A and B remain potential enemies who wouldprefer to be able to cheat and build more weapons than the other. The payoff table for A (player1, the row player) and B (player 2, the column player) in each period after signing thisagreement is below. a) First assume that each state uses Tit-for-Tat (TFT) as a strategy in this repeated game.The rate of return is r. For what values of r would it be worth it for player A to cheat bybuilding additional weapons just once against TFT? b) For what values of r would it be worth deviating from the agreement forever to buildweapons? c) Convert both values you found in parts a and b to the equivalent discount factor dusing the formula given in lecture and section. d) Use the answers you find to discuss the relationship between d and r:…
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 ‘war of attrition’. Two animals are in a stand off for a prey. Theyindependently decide when to give up. Waiting is costly, but the animal giving up last winsthe prey (they each get nothing if they walk away at the exact same time). Getting the preygives a benefit of 80 while waiting costs 2 per unit of time. Formally payoffs are given asfollows:u1(t1, t2) =(−2t1 if t1 ≤ t280 − 2t2 if t1 > t2u2(t1, t2) =(80 − 2t1 if t1 < t2−2t2 if t1 ≥ t2,where ti is the amount of time animal i decided to wait. Assuming that animals aim tomaximize payoffs (consciously or not), figure out the Nash equilibria of this game by answeringthe following questions (similar to how we proceeded to solve the Bertrand game).(a) Show that there is no Nash equilibrium where both animals wait a strictly positiveamount of time. For this, consider two subcases: (i) both wait the same amount oftime, or (ii) one gives in earlier than the other.(b) Assume now that one animal, say the first one,…
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)
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.
Someone at a party pulls out a $100 bill and announces that he is going to auction it off. There are n=10 people at the partywho are potential bidders. The owner of the $100 bill puts forth the following procedure: All bidders simultaneously submit a written bid. Only the highest bidders pay their bid (assuming that the highest bid is positive). If m people submit the highest bid, then each receives 1/m of the $100. Each person’s strategy set is {0,1,2,...,1000}{0,1,2,...,1000} so bidding can go as high as $1,000. The payoff of a player bidding bi is:0 if bi < max{b1,b2,…,bn},and 100/m − bi if bi = max {b1,b2,…,bn}where,m is the number of bidders whose bid equals max{b1,...,bn}. How many pure-strategy Nash equilibria does this game have? 1) 0 2) 1 3) 4 4) More than 4.