Which of the following accurately describes a player's strictly dominant strategy? It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. There is always at least one player who has one in every game. It is the strategy a player uses in the Nash equilibrium of a game. Since a Nash equilibrium always exists, players always have a strictly dominant strategy. It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. A player may or may not have one. O It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. Every player has a dominant strategy in every game. It is the strategy a player uses in the Nash equilibrium of a game. Since a Nash equilibrium may not exist, players may not always have a strictly dominant strategy.

Which of the following accurately describes a player's strictly dominant strategy? It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. There is always at least one player who has one in every game. It is the strategy a player uses in the Nash equilibrium of a game. Since a Nash equilibrium always exists, players always have a strictly dominant strategy. It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. A player may or may not have one. O It is a strategy that is better than all the player's other strategies, no matter what the other players do. Every player has a dominant strategy in every game. It is the strategy a player uses in the Nash equilibrium of a game. Since a Nash equilibrium may not exist, players may not always have a strictly dominant strategy.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.3P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Does each individual in a prisoners dilemma benefit more from cooperation or from pursuing self-interest? Explain briefly.
Sometimes oligopolies in the same industry are very different in size. Suppose we have a duopoly where one firm (Film A) is large and the other film (Film B) is small, as the prisoners dilemma box in Table 10.4 shows. Assuming that both films know the payoffs, what is the likely outcome in this case?
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 following price game: Firm 1 Firm 2 High Low High 20, 20 12, 24 Low 24, 12 14, 14 Remark: In simultaneous move games (games with rows and columns) theconvention is to write the row player’s payoff first and the column player’spayoff second. (a) What is the Nash equilibrium of this game? Recall that for each playeryou should find the best response to each of the opponents’ strategies andunderline the associated payoff. Then look for a cell where both strategiesare best responses to each other. This is a Nash equilibrium. (b) Does either firm have a dominate strategy (a strategy that is always abest response)?
Solve for the Nash equilibrium (or equilibria) in each of the following games. (a) The following two-by-two game is a little harder to solve since firm 2’spreferred strategy depends of what firm 1 does. But firm 1 has a dominantstrategy so this game has one Nash equilibrium. Firm 2 Launch Don’tFirm 1 Launch 60, -10 100, 0 Don’t 80, 30 120, 0 What is the Nash equilibrium of this simultaneous-move game? (b) What would the outcome of this game be if instead firm 1 moved first and then, after seeing what firm 1 chose, firm 2 chose it strategy? In this case firm 1 doesn’t necessarily need to choose a best response, but firm 2 must choose a best response since it moves second.
Suppose we’ve modelled a firm’s entry decision with a one-shot, simultaneous move game, determined payoffs and found the Nash equilibrium. Suppose with the payoffs we came up with, both firms have a clear dominant strategy such that there is a Nash equilibrium in which both firms play their dominant strategy. However, when we observe the actual actions of the firms, we see that they don’t choose the strategy wepredicted and the outcome of the game doesn’t match the Nash equilibrium. What are 4 reasons this might be? (Hint: The firms are rational.)
Suppose that two players are playing the following game. Player 1 can choose either Top or Bottom, and Player 2 can choose either Left or Right. The payoffs are given in the following table: Player 1 Player 2 Left Right Top 6 1 9 4 Bottom 2 4 5 3 where the number on the left is the payoff to Player 1, and the number on the right is the payoff to Player 2. D) What is Player 1’s maximin strategy?E) What is Player 2’s maximin strategy?F) If the game were played with Player 1 moving first and Player 2 moving second, using the backward induction method we went over in class, what strategy will each player choose?
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?
2. Consider the following game. Assume that this game is played simultaneously and without collusion. The two companies are choosing between two strategies: go international or stay national. The outcomes of each strategy for each company are given the following payoff matrix: a) Find Nash equilibrium in this game. Interpret the equilibrium you found. b) What is the Chipco's dominant strategy, if it has one? How shall Chipco's payoffs change for it to not have a dominant strategy anymore?
1. Consider the pricing game between firm 1 (row) and firm 2 (column) belowwhere each number represents the profits made by each firm.:Table 1: Pricing gameLow HighLow 288,288 360,216High 216,360 324,324 a) Point out the Nash equilibrium. Is this a unique Nash equilibrium?c) What type of commitment can firm 1 make to improve its pay-off?Can it be classified as a threat or promise? (Assume that the commitmentis credible.)d) How would you represent the game as a game tree with the option tocommit?2. Consider the signalling / production game with the order of play given below.Assuming that the signal is informative (i.e. education is sufficiently costly),how would you change the order of the game to make sure that poolingequilibriums are ruled out? Verbally motivate your answer.• Nature chooses ability of the workers a ∈ (H, L), ability is observed byworkers but not employers.• The worker choose an education level s ∈ (0, 1).• The employer offer contracts w(s).• The worker accepts or…
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:…