Which of the following statements about Nash Equilibria in a two-player one-shot simultaneous game is FALSE?If one player has a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed.O If both players have a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed.A Nash Equilibrium is conditional on at least one player having a dominant strategy.Click So

The Nash Equilibrium could be achieved when one of two or both players have a dominant strategy. But…

Which of the following statements about Nash Equilibria in a two-player one-shot simultaneous game is FALSE? O f one player has a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed. If both players have a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed. O A Nash Equilibrium is conditional on at least one player having a dominant strategy.

Which of the following statements about Nash Equilibria in a two-player one-shot simultaneous game is FALSE? O f one player has a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed. If both players have a dominant strategy, a Nash Equilibrium is guaranteed. O A Nash Equilibrium is conditional on at least one player having a dominant strategy.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.2P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

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.
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?
2. Consider the game matrix given here: a. If (T, L) is a dominant strategy equilibrium, then what inequalities must hold among a,…,h? b. If (T, L) is a Nash equilibrium, then which of the above inequalities must be satisfied?
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
True or False?Please Explain Thoroughly: In a Nash equilibrium of a strategic game, each player must best respond to her opponents’ actions, therefore, no other action profile can be unanimously preferredby all the players to a Nash equilibrium.
Consider the following game, where M > 0: The matrix payoff is shown below Gill Left Right James Accept 0, 0 2, −2 Reject ?, −? 1, −1 a) Do players have a dominant strategy? (b) What is the Nash equilibrium (or equilibria)? (c) Are there any values of M such there is no Nash equilibrium in pure strategy? ( d) Find the mixed strategies Nash equilibrium?
True or False?: (Recall that a strategic game is called Dominance Solvable if and only if exactlyone action profile remains after iteratively eliminating all strictly dominated actions.)If a strategic game is dominance solvable, it can have at most one Nash equilibrium.
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?
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?
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.
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.)
Consider the following simultaneous move game: a. What is the maximum amount player 1 should be willing to pay for the opportunity to move first instead of moving at the same time as player 2? Explain carefully. b. What is the maximum amount player 2 should be willing to spend to keep player 1 from getting to move first?