EBK MICROECONOMICS
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134524931
Author: List
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 13, Problem 7P
(a)
To determine
Pay-off matrix of a two-player rock-paper-scissors game.
(b)
To determine
Existence of equilibrium, if players use pure strategy.
(c)
To determine
Reason for use of mixed strategy in a game of rock-paper-scissors.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Use a matrix to model a two-player game of rock-paper-scissors with payoff of 1 if you win, -1 if you lose, and 0 if you tie. In this game, how many pure-strategies Nash equilibria exist?
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.
refer to image and pick answer
Two athletes of equal ability are competing for a prize of $12,000. Each is deciding whether to take a dangerous performance-enhancing drug. If one athlete takes the drug and the other does not, the one who takes the drug wins the prize. If both or neither take the drug, they tie and split the prize. Taking the drug imposes health risks that are equivalent to a loss of XX dollars.
Complete the following payoff matrix describing the decisions the athletes face. Enter Player One's payoff on the left in each situation, Player Two's on the right.
Player Two's Decision
Take Drug
Don't Take Drug
Player One's Decision
Take Drug
,
,
Don't Take Drug
,
,
True or False: The Nash equilibrium is taking the drug if X is greater than $6,000.
True
False
Suppose there was a way to make the drug safer (that is, have lower XX).
Which of the following statements are true about the effects of making the drug safer? Check all that…
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Please can you redraw the payoff matrixarrow_forwardIn the following 3-player game, the payoffs represent the number of years in jail. The equilibrium is ________ Group of answer choices Eric and Ned denies. Eric and Tim confess, but Ned denies. Eric confesses, Ned and Tim deny. Eric and Time deny, but Ned confessesarrow_forwardUse the following payoff matrix to answer the following questions Suppose this is a one-shot game: a. Determine the dominant strategy for each player. If such strategies do not exist, explain why not. b. Determine the secure strategy for each player. If such strategies do not exist, explain why not. c. Determine the Nash equilibrium of this game. If such an equilibrium does not exist, explain why not.arrow_forward
- Consider a simultaneous move game with two players. Player 1 has three possible actions (A, B, or C) and Player 2 has two possible actions (D or E.) In the payoff matrix below, each cell contains the payoff for Player 1 followed by the payoff for Player 2. Identify any pure strategy Nash Equilibria in this game. If there are none, state this clearly.arrow_forwardDesign the payoffff matrix of a game with no Nash Equilibria. The game should have 2 players, 2 strategies for each player, and the payoffffs for each player should be either 0 or 1.arrow_forwardCan you explain the "altruism and reciprocity" game theory, and provide an example? Is this the same as the "trust game?"arrow_forward
- Consider the following payoff matrix that is below : A. Does Player A have a dominant startegy? Explain why or why not b. Does player B have a dominant strategy? Explain why or why not. Player B Strategy 1 2 Player A Strategy 1 $2,000 \ $1,000 -$1,000 \ -$2,000 2 -$2,000 \ -$1,000 $1,000 \ $2,000arrow_forwardConsider a game where player A moves first, choosing between Left and Right. Then, after observing player A’s choice, player B moves next choosing between Up and Down. Which of the following is true? This is a game where players A and B have the same number of strategies. Player A will get a higher payoff than player B as A moves first. This is game will only have one Nash equilibrium. This is a game of perfect information.arrow_forwardTwo athletes of equal ability are competing for a prize of $10,000. Each is deciding whether to take a dangerous performance enhancing drug. If one athlete takes the drug, and the other does not, the one who takes the drug wins the prize. If both or neither take the drug, they tie and split the prize. Taking the drug imposes health risks that are equivalent to a loss of X dollars. a) Draw a 2×2 payoff matrix describing the decisions the athletes face. b) For what X is taking the drug the Nash equilibrium? c) Does making the drug safer (that is, lowering X) make the athletes better or worse off? Explain.arrow_forward
- If a player does not have a dominant strategy, can the game still have a Nash equilibrium? No. At least one player must have a dominant strategy for the outcome to be a Nash equilibrium. Yes. There is no need for a dominant strategy to exist in order to have a Nash equilibrium. The outcome is a Nash equilibrium because each player has made his or her optimal choice based on the optimal choice of the other player. No. If there is no dominant strategy, there is no predictable outcome and therefore no Nash equilibrium. Yes. A Nash equilibrium is possible only if neither player has a dominant strategy. If a dominant strategy exists, it is no longer a Nash equilibrium.arrow_forwardSuppose two players play the prisoners' dilemma game a finite number of times, both players are rational, and the game is played with complete information, is a tit-for-tat strategy optimal in this case? Explain using your own words.arrow_forwardConsider the following dynamic game. There are two players (P1, P2). Player 2 tries to rob Player 1. If Player 1 pays $100, the game is over with Player 1 (victim) paying $100 to Player 2 (robber) (P1: -$100, P2: +$100). If Player 1 refuses to pay $100, then Player 2 has two choices: one is to hurt Player 1 (P1: -$5,000, P2: -$1,000) and the other is to walk away (P1: 0, P2: 0). Explain how to find an equilibrium in this game.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506381
Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning