EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17.5, Problem 1MQ
To determine
Extensive form of new game.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Consider the following game. There are two payers, Player 1 and Player 2. Player 1 chooses a row (10, 20, or 30), and Player 2 chooses a column (10/20/30). Payoffs are in the cells of the table, with those on the left going to Player 1 and those on the right going to player 2.
Suppose that Player 1 chooses his strategy (10, 20 or 30), first, and subsequently, and after observing Player 1’s choice, Player 2 chooses his own strategy (of 10, 20 or 30). Which of the following statements is true regarding this modified game?
I. It is a simultaneous move game, because the timing of moves is irrelevant in classifying games.II. It is a sequential move game, because Player 2 observes Player 1’s choice before he chooses his own strategy.III. This modification gives Player 1 a ‘first mover advantage’.
A) I and IIB) II and IIIC) I and IIID) I onlyE) II only
Consider the game tree below (attached). In this game, each player can mover either Up (U) or Down (D). Player 1 moves first, then Player 2, and Player 3 moves last.
Using backwards induction,
clearly identify the choice that each player will make at each stage in the tree
circle the ultimate outcome (payoff) to the game
Consider 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.
Chapter 17 Solutions
EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
Ch. 17.3 - Prob. 1MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 2MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 1.2MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 2.2MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 1.3MQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 1TTACh. 17.3 - Prob. 2TTACh. 17.4 - Prob. 1TTACh. 17.4 - Prob. 2TTA
Ch. 17.4 - Prob. 1.1TTACh. 17.4 - Prob. 2.1TTACh. 17.4 - Prob. 1MQCh. 17.4 - Prob. 1.2TTACh. 17.4 - Prob. 2.2TTACh. 17.5 - Prob. 1MQCh. 17.5 - Prob. 2MQCh. 17.6 - Prob. 1TTACh. 17.6 - Prob. 2TTACh. 17 - Prob. 1RQCh. 17 - Prob. 2RQCh. 17 - Prob. 3RQCh. 17 - Prob. 4RQCh. 17 - Prob. 5RQCh. 17 - Prob. 6RQCh. 17 - Prob. 7RQCh. 17 - Prob. 8RQCh. 17 - Prob. 9RQCh. 17 - Prob. 10RQCh. 17 - Prob. 17.1PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.2PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.3PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.4PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.5PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.6PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.7PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.8PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.9PCh. 17 - Prob. 17.10P
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Consider a modification of driving conventions, shown in the figure below, in which each player has a third strategy: to zigzag on the road. Suppose that if a player chooses zigzag, the chances of an accident are the same whether the other player drives on the left, drives on the right, or zigzags as well. Let that payoff be 0, so that it lies between –1, the payoff when a collision occurs for sure, and 1, the payoff when a collision does not occur. Find all Nash equilibria.arrow_forwardCan you explain the "altruism and reciprocity" game theory, and provide an example? Is this the same as the "trust game?"arrow_forwardPlayer 1 and Player 2 are trying to agree on how to split a pie of size 1 in a two-stage bargaining game. If no agreement is reached after the two stages are complete, the pie is split for them according to a pre-arranged agreement that gives Player 1 and Player 2 one-quarter and three quarters of the pie, respectively. In the first stage, Player 1 makes an offer (x1, x2), where x1 + x2 = 1. Player 2 can either accept this offer (at which point the game ends and the pie is split according to Player 1’s offer), or can make a counter-offer. When Player 2 makes a counter offer, Player 1 can either accept (in which case the pie is split according to Player 2’s offer) or can reject, in which case the pie is split according to the pre-arranged agreement. Both players have a discount factor d – getting dx in the first stage (after Player 1’s proposal) is as good as getting x in the second stage (after Player 2’s proposal). a) In the last stage of the game, Player 1 will accept any offer…arrow_forward
- The following table contains the possible actions and payoffs of players 1 and 2. Player 2 Cooperate Not Cooperate Player Cooperate 15 , 15 -20 , 20 1 Not Cooperate 20 , -10 10 , 10 This game is infinitely repeated, and in each period both players must choose their actions simultaneously. If both players follow a tit-for-tat strategy, then they can Cooperate in equilibrium if the interest rate r is . At an interest rate of r=0.5, . If instead of playing an infinite number of times, the players play the game only 10 times, then in the first period player 1 receives a payoff ofarrow_forwardConsider the following game played by four individuals, players 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each individual has $10,000. Each player can donate between $0 and $10,000 to build a public park that costs $20,000. If they collect enough money, they construct the park, which is worth $9,000 to each of them. However, if they collect less than $20,000, they cannot build a park. Furthermore, regardless of whether the park is built or not, individuals lose any donations that they make. a) Describe the Nash equilibria for a simultaneous game. What makes them equilibria? Hint: There are many equilibria, so you may want to use a mathematical expression! b) Suppose that players 1, 2, and 3, each donate $4,000 for the park. How much will player 4 donate and why. What are the resulting payoffs for the players? c) Suppose instead that player 1 donated first, player 2 second, player 3 third, and player 4 last. Furthermore, players could only donate in intervals of 1,000 (0, $1,000, $2,000, etc.). How much will…arrow_forwardGiven the stage game above/below. Suppose that the players play (C,C) in period t = 1; 3; 5; ::: and plays (D,D) in period t = 2; 4; 6; ::. Compute the discounted payoff of each player.arrow_forward
- To Vote or Not to Vote Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes “cancel each other out.” They each gain two units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose two units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each one unit of utility. Diagram a game in which they choose whether to vote or not to vote. Mrs. Ward vote. don't vote Mr. Ward Vote. -1, -1. 1, -2 don't vote. -2, 1. 0,0?arrow_forwardUNIT 9 CHAPTER 5 In a gambling game, Player A and Player B both have a $1 and a $5 bill. Each player selects one of the bills without the other player knowing the bill selected. Simultaneously they both reveal the bills selected. If the bills do not match, Player A wins Player B's bill. If the bills match, Player B wins Player A's bill. Develop the game theory table for this game. The values should be expressed as the gains (or losses) for Player A. Is there a pure strategy? Why or why not? Determine the optimal strategies and the value of this game. Does the game favor one player over the other? Suppose Player B decides to deviate from the optimal strategy and begins playing each bill 50% of the time. What should Player A do to improve Player A’s winnings? Comment on why it is important to follow an optimal game theory strategy.arrow_forwardMicrosoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 3 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 1. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 1 while the rival gains 1 units of utility.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_forwardMicrosoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 4 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 2. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 2 while the rival gains 2 units of utility. Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix, assuming that each company chooses its technology simultaneously. Microsoft Technology A Technology B Rival Technology A Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft Technology B Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft True or False: There is an equilibrium for this game in pure strategies.arrow_forwardConsider the following representation of a hockey shootout. The shooter can shoot on their forehand, or deke to their backhand, and the goalie can anticipate either move. The number in each cell in the table below represents the percentage chance that the shooter scores for each pair of pure strategies. Anticipate Forehand Anticipate Backhand Shoot Forehand 20 40 Deke Backhand 40 10 In the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium of this game, what is the percentage chance that the player scores? (ie. An 80% chance should be recorded as 80)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