There is a beach with nine regions in it and two pop sellers must choose in which region to situate. Customers in each region walk to the closest seller to buy a pop. Each pop is sold for $1 each. Suppose that the customers are not distributed evenly across the regions. Regions 2 through 9 each have 10 customers but region 1 has x customers. For what values of x does the strategy of locating in region 2 dominate locating in region 1? In particular, what is the maximum value of x for this to be true? Please show all your calculations in your written solution.

There is a beach with nine regions in it and two pop sellers must choose in which region to situate. Customers in each region walk to the closest seller to buy a pop. Each pop is sold for $1 each. Suppose that the customers are not distributed evenly across the regions. Regions 2 through 9 each have 10 customers but region 1 has x customers. For what values of x does the strategy of locating in region 2 dominate locating in region 1? In particular, what is the maximum value of x for this to be true? Please show all your calculations in your written solution.

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.
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.
There are a kicker and a goalie who confront each other in a penalty kick that willdetermine the outcome of the game. The kicker can kick the ball left or right, while the goaliecan choose to jump left or right. Because of the speed of the kick, the decisions need to bemade simultaneously. If the goalie jumps in the same direction as the kick, then the goalie winsand the kicker loses. If the goalie jumps in the opposite direction of the kick then the kickerwins and the goalie loses. Model this as a strategic form game and write down the matrix thatrepresents the game you modeled. Find the Nash equilibrium.
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?
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 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 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.
The prisoners' dilemma is a two-person game illus·trating thata. t he cooperative outcome could be worse for bothpeople than t he Nash equilibrium.b . even if the cooperative outcome is better than theNash equilibrium for one person, it might be worsefor the other.c. even if cooperation is better than the Nash equilibrium,each person might have an incentive not tocooperate.d . rational, seff·interested individuals will naturallyavoid the Nash equilibrium because it is worse forboth of them.
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.
(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?
3.1 Do either of the two telecommunications firms have a dominant strategy in this interaction?If so, what are these dominant strategies? 3.2 What is the Nash Equilibrium of the game above? Clearly, show the logic you use to reachyour conclusion. What type of game is this? 3.3 Suppose the two firms could incentivize or punish each other, could the two firms find theirway to the socially optimum outcome? How would they do this? After observing the strategic interaction between Globogym and Average Joe’s, the governmentdecides to pass a law that states that the two terms must pre-commit to the quantities of trainingsessions they will supply to the American market.Market demand for training sessions is still modeled as ? = 400 − 0.2?, as before, and the marginalcost of production is constant at R40 per call. Let the number of sessions provided by Globogym berepresented by ?G and the quantity provided by Average Joe’s be represented by ?A. 3.4 Solve the firms’ reaction functions and…