1. Consider the following sequential game: Left (3,5) Mary Go (6,4) Up Right John Stop (5.7) John John Go Down (4.1) Left Mary Stop (2.5) Right (6,-1) (John as player 1 and Mary as player 2) By backward induction, find a Nash equilibrium and the corresponding payoffs.

5. Consider the following Extended Form game where P1 stands for Player one and P2 stands for player two with A, B and A', B' being their respective strategies. A' (1,1) P2 B' (2,3) P1 A' B (4,5) P2 What is the set of Nash Equilibria? Clearly explain your answer. Full-screen Snip B' (6,7)

Consider the game with the payoffs below. Which of the possible outcomes are MORE efficient than the Nash Equilibrium (NE)? Note, they do NOT need to be Nash equilibria themselves, they just need to be more efficient than the NE. Multiple answers are possible, but not necessary. You need to check ALL correct answers for full credit.           JILL          High    Medium    LowMAGGIE    Left    3,4    2,3    2,2Center    4,8    9,7    8,7Right    7,6    8,5    9,4Group of answer choices (Left, Low) There is no strategy combination that is more efficient than the Nash equilibrium for this game. (Right, Medium) (Left, High) (Center, Medium) (Center, High) (Center, Low) (Left, Medium) (Right, Low) (Right, High)

Two rival companies competing in the same market need to decide their plans for future expansion of their stores. The Table below shows the possible outcomes of their mutually interdependent actions (payoffs are profits in £m)     Giga Company Titanic Conglomerate   No Change Refurbishment of existing stores Large Expansion No Change     30, 40      25, 35    15, 24 Refurbishment of existing stores     35, 30      28, 32    18, 33 Large Expansion     12, 22     18, 20    20, 25   The Nash equilibrium:            (A)       does not exist. (B)       occurs when both firms choose Refurbishment of existing stores.              (C)       occurs when both firms choose Large Expansion. (D)       occurs when both firms choose No Change.