Suppose that you and a friend play a matching pennies game in which each of you uncovers a penny. If both pennies show heads or both show tails, you keep both. If one shows heads and the other shows tails, your friend keeps them. Show the pay- off matrix. What, if any, is the pure-strategy Nash equilibrium to this game? Is there a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium? If so, what is it?

Suppose that you and a friend play a matching pennies game in which each of you uncovers a penny. If both pennies show heads or both show tails, you keep both. If one shows heads and the other shows tails, your friend keeps them. Show the pay- off matrix. What, if any, is the pure-strategy Nash equilibrium to this game? Is there a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium? If so, what is it?

Exploring Economics

8th Edition

ISBN:9781544336329

Author:Robert L. Sexton

Publisher:Robert L. Sexton

Chapter15: Oligopoly And Strategic Behavior

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 17P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

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?
Consider the payoff matrix for a game depicted below. Player 1 selects the row and Player 2 selects the column. Up Down Left 1, -1 -1, 1 Right -1, 1 1, -1 What is (are) the Nash equilibrium (equilibria)? Question 18Answer a. Player 1 plays right; Player 2 plays down b. Player 1 plays left; Player 2 plays down c. Player 1 plays down; Player 2 plays left d. Player 1 plays right; Player 2 plays up e. Player 1 plays up; Player 2 plays left f. There is no Nash equilibrium g. Player 1 plays down; Player 2 plays right h. Player 1 plays up; Player 2 plays right i. Player 1 plays left; Player 2 plays up
Refer to the payoff matrix below. Assuming this is a sequential game with no collusion, what is the outcome if Firm A moves first to build a new type of commercial aircraft? Explain why fifi rst-mover strategies in the realworld are only as good as the profifit projections on which they are based. How could a supposed “win” from moving first turn out to be a big loss, whereas the “loss” of being preempted turn out to be a blessing in disguise?
So imagine you are playing this game as the second player and you are both given a 10 dollars and the dictator decides to offer you 25 cents and that she/he will keep $9.25. Your only choice is to accept the 25 cents or reject the offer and get no money at all. What would you do? What would be considered ‘rational’ from the perspective of utility maximization? What would you do if this is a continued game and the same scenario will happen multiple times not just once? Do you think others will react the same way you would?
Please no written by hand Two players bargain over how to split $10. Each player i ∈ {1, 2} choose a number si ∈ [0, 10] (which does not need to be an integer). Each player’s payoff is the money he receives. We consider two allocation rules. In each case, if s1 + s2 ≤ 10, each player gets his chosen amount si and the rest is destroyed. 1. In the first case, if s1 + s2 > 10, both players get zero. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 2. In the second case, if s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 6= s2, the player who chose the smallest amount receives this amount and the other gets the rest. If s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 = s2, they both get $5. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 3. Now suppose that s1 and s2 must be integers. Does this change the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in either case?
Alice and Betsy are playing a game in which each can play either of two strategies, leave or stay. If both play the strategy leave, then each gets a payoff of $400. If both play the strategy stay, then each gets a payoff of $800. If one plays stay and the other plays leave, then the one who plays stay gets a payoff of $C and the one who plays leave gets a payoff of $D. When is the outcome where both play leave a Nash equilibrium? a) never, since 800 > 400 b) when 400 > C and D > 800 but not when 800 > D c) whenever 400 > C d) when D > C and C > 400 e) whenever d < 800
H2. One day, Sam and Ryan play odds/evens to see who gets the last doughnut. On command, they each extend one or two fingers. If the sum is odd Sam wins the doughnut, if the sum is even Ryan wins the doughnut. Suppose the payoff from winning the doughnut is 1 and the payoff from losing is 0. a) Illustrate this interaction as a game in matrix form. b) Suppose that Sam thinks that Ryan will play one finger for sure? What will Sam play? Does Sam have reason to think that Ryan will play one finger for sure? c) Do either of them have a strictly dominated strategy? d) Find the pure strategy Nash equilibria of the game, if any. e) Suppose that Sam thinks that Ryan will play one finger or two fingers with even odds. Will Ryan play one finger for sure, play two fingers for sure or play each strategy with even odds? Does Sam have good reason to believe that Ryan will play one finger or two fingers with even odds?
Use the following payoff matrix for a one-shot game to answer the accompanying questions. a. Determine the Nash equilibrium outcomes that arise if the players make decisions independently, simultaneously, and without any communication. Which of these outcomes would you consider most likely? Explain. b. Suppose player 1 is permitted to “communicate” by uttering one syllable before the players simultaneously and independently make their decisions. What should player 1 utter, and what outcome do you think would occur as a result? c. Suppose player 2 can choose its strategy before player 1, that player 1 observes player 2’s choice before making her decision, and that this move structure is known by both players. What outcome would you expect? Explain.
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?
1) Suppose that Player A can take two actions, either Up or Down. Player A is thinking to choose Up 50 percent of the time, and Down 50 percent of the time. This type of strategy is called a ____ ? 2) Consider a payoff matrix of a game shown below. In each cell, the number on the left is a payoff for Player A and the number on the right is a payoff for Player B. In order for (Down, Right) to be a unique pure strategy Nash equilibrium, a must be (greater, or smaller) than 3 and b must be (greater, or smaller) than 3. refer to image
1. Consider the game where initially She chooses between "Stay Home" and "Go Out". If She chooses "Stay Home" then She gets 2 and He gets 0. If She chooses "Go Out" then they each simultaneously choose "Movie" or "Concert" where the payoffs are 0,1 or 3 as in the Battle of the Sexes Game. What are the subgame perfect Nash Equilibria of this game ?
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:…