Why is a solution that we find through backward induction always a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium? The results of backward induction are the only possible Nash equilibria. The backward induction solution maximizes the combined payoffs of all players. O At each decision node, backward induction chooses the best option going forward for the player who moves at th O When we use backward induction, we only consider dominant strategies.

Why is a solution that we find through backward induction always a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium? The results of backward induction are the only possible Nash equilibria. The backward induction solution maximizes the combined payoffs of all players. O At each decision node, backward induction chooses the best option going forward for the player who moves at th O When we use backward induction, we only consider dominant strategies.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.1P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose two players play a two-period repeated game, where the stage game is the normal-form game shown below. Is there a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in which the players select (A, X) in the first period? If so, fully describe such equilibrium. If not, explain why not. Player 1 has choice A, B; Player 2 has choice X, Y, Z. Payoff: (A,X)-(5,7), (A,Y)-(2,4), (A,Z)-(3,8), (B,X)-(1,4), (B,Y)-(3,5), (B,Z)-(1,4)
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.
if Y =4 (b) What is the highest payoff any player can receive in any subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of the repeated game?
The Nash equilibrium of the accompanying game is Player 1 Multiple Choice O O O (Y. B). (X, B). X Y Z (Z. C). Player 2 A 9, 8 5, 6 10, 9 none of the provided answers because there is no Nash equilibrium in this game. B 10, 12 12, 20 13, 4 C 3, 15 4, 10 8, 12
There are three players who must each choose an “effort” level from 1 to 7, that is, Si = {1, 2, 3, ..., 7}. The payoff for each player i is ui(si, s−i) = 10 max{s1, s2, s3} − si. How many pure- strategy Nash equilibria are there? Select one: a.2 b.4 c.none of the other answers d.3 e.1
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?
parameter z= 1 In the unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, what is the sum of the payoffs tothe two players?
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 two-player game illustrated here. a. For each player, derive those strategies which survive the iterativedeletion of strictly dominated strategies.b. Derive all strategy pairs that are Nash equilibria.
Two players bargain over $20. Player 1 first proposes a split of(n, 20 - n), where n is an integer in {0, 1, ..., 20}. Player 2 can either accept or reject this proposal. If player accepts it, player 1 obtains $n and player 2 obtains $(20 - n). If player 2 rejects it, the money is taken away from them and both players will get $0. Question: Find two subgame perfect Nash equilibria of this game and state clearly each player's equilibrium strategies (recall that in a dynamic game, a player's strategy is a complete-contingent plan). Explain why the strategy profiles form a subgame perfect equilibrium.
Consider the following simultaneous move game where player 1 has two types. Player 2 does not know if he is playing with type a player 1 or type b player 1. Find the all the possible Bayesian Nash Equilibriums (BNE) of this game.
Game Theory Consider the entry game with incomplete information studied in class. An incumbent politician's cost of campaigning can be high or low and the entrant does not know this cost (but the incumbent does). In class, we found two pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria in this game. Assume that the probability that the cost of campaigning is high is a parameter p, 0 < p < 1. Show that when p is large enough, there is only one pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. What is it? What is the intuition? How large does p have to be? Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.