EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 15, Problem 7RQ
To determine
To explain:Reason to bid in a second price, sealed price auction and not in first − price, sealed-bid auction. Also, worse idea when value of good is uncertain.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Explain why a player in a sealed-bid, second-price auction would never submit a bid that exceeds his or her true value of the object being sold. (Hint: What if all players submitted bids greater than their valuations of the object?)
Consider the following scenarios in the Ultimatum game, viewed from the perspective of the Recipient. Assume that the Recipient is motivated by negative reciprocity and will gain $15 of
value from rejecting an offer that is strictly less than 50 percent of the total amount to be divided between the two players by the Proposer. Assume that the Proposer can only make offers
in increments of $1.
If the pot is $30, what is the minimum offer that the Responder will accept? What percent of the pie is this amount?
The minimum offer that will be accepted is S. which represents percent of the pie.
If the pot is $100, what is the minimum offer that the Responder will accept? What percent of the pie is this amount?
The minimum offer that will be accepted is S, which represents percent of the pie. (Round answers to 2 decimal places as needed)
Why it is unwise to bid less than your valuation of the good in a sealed bid second-price auction.
In the first price sealed bid auction, a player gets a positive payoff by doing bid shading. Explain the tradeoff between biding lower than the value of the object and biding very close to value of the object.
Chapter 15 Solutions
EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
Ch. 15.2 - Prob. 1TTACh. 15.2 - Prob. 2TTACh. 15.2 - Prob. 1MQCh. 15.2 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 15.2 - Prob. 2.1MQCh. 15.2 - Prob. 1.1TTACh. 15.2 - Prob. 2.1TTACh. 15.2 - Prob. 1.2TTACh. 15.2 - Prob. 2.2TTACh. 15.3 - Prob. 1MQ
Ch. 15.3 - Prob. 2MQCh. 15.4 - Prob. 1MQCh. 15.4 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 15.4 - Prob. 2.1MQCh. 15.5 - Prob. 1TTACh. 15.5 - Prob. 2TTACh. 15.5 - Prob. 1MQCh. 15.5 - Prob. 2MQCh. 15 - Prob. 1RQCh. 15 - Prob. 2RQCh. 15 - Prob. 3RQCh. 15 - Prob. 4RQCh. 15 - Prob. 5RQCh. 15 - Prob. 6RQCh. 15 - Prob. 7RQCh. 15 - Prob. 8RQCh. 15 - Prob. 9RQCh. 15 - Prob. 10RQCh. 15 - Prob. 15.1PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.2PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.3PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.4PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.5PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.6PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.7PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.8PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.9PCh. 15 - Prob. 15.10P
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Consider the following situation: five individuals are participating in an auction for an old bicycle used by a famous cyclist. The table below provides the bidders' valuations of the cycle. The auctioneer starts the bid at an offer price far above the bidders' values and lowers the price in increments until one of the bidders accepts the offer. Bidder Value ($) Roberto 750 Claudia 700 Mario 650 Bradley 600 Michelle 550 What is the optimal strategy of each player in this case? Who will win the auction if each bidder places his or her optimal bid? If Claudia wins the auction, how much surplus will she earn?arrow_forwardHow to solve this question? Consider an antique auction where bidders have independent private values. There are two bidders, each of whom perceives that valuations are uniformly distributed between $100 and $1,000. One of the bidders is Sue, who knows her own valuation is $200. What is Sue's optimal bidding strategy in a Dutch auction?arrow_forwardSee attachments for question context. Question: Some people advocated the following modifiction of the auction rule. A bidder cannot bid for only one object, i.e., if at some point in time he withdraws from the bidding race for one object, he automatically withdraws the race for the other object. Every other aspect of the auction, including how prices increase over time, does not change. What should a bidder do if his valuation for the two objects are 50 and 60, respectively? Explain. Does the auction lead to an efficient allocation? Explain.arrow_forward
- So imagine you are playing this game as the second player and you are both given a 10 dollars and the dictator decides to offer you 25 cents and that she/he will keep $9.25. Your only choice is to accept the 25 cents or reject the offer and get no money at all. What would you do? What would be considered ‘rational’ from the perspective of utility maximization? What would you do if this is a continued game and the same scenario will happen multiple times not just once? Do you think others will react the same way you would?arrow_forwardDiscrete All-Pay Auction: In Section 6.1.4 we introduced a version of an all- pay auction that worked as follows: Each bidder submits a bid. The highest bidder gets the good, but all bidders pay their bids. Consider an auction in which player 1 values the item at 3 while player 2 values the item at 5. Each player can bid either 0, 1, or 2. If player i bids more than player j then i wins the good and both pay. If both players bid the same amount then a coin is tossed to determine who gets the good, but again both pay. a. Write down the game in matrix form. Which strategies survive IESDS? b. Find the Nash equilibria for this game.arrow_forwardSuppose your utility over money (X) is given by u(x)3x-, where r=2/3. You are one of two bidders in a first price sealed bid auction. The other bidder places a bid randomly drawn from a uniform distribution between 0 and 10. 1. What is your optimal bid in this case? 2. Compare that number with what your optimal bid would be ifr were equal to 0. What is the explanation for this difference?arrow_forward
- Explain whether the statement is true or false and explain why? Statement 1: If a game has a Pareto efficient outcome, there exists a Nash equilibrium that leads to this outcome. Statement 2: If someone has linear indifference curves between contingent commodity bundles, then she must be risk averse and the risk premium is positive. Statement 3: Suppose we have a game with three pure strategies. In a (fully) mixed strategy Nash equilibrium, a player is indifferent between her three pure strategiesarrow_forwardAssume that two people are bargaining over how to split the surplus of their joint efforts, which total $100. The only difference between the two is that player A has an associated interest rate of 5 percent and player B has an associated interest rate of 20 percent. Based on Nash bargaining theory, what share of the $100 ill Player A wind up with? (Please provide your answer in $ style format)arrow_forwardConsider a second-price auction (i.e. the highest bid wins, but the winner only pays the second-highest bid), where one bidder is willing to pay much more for the object than anyone else. These are the individual valuations (each bidder only knows their own) Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 3 Bidder 4 Bidder 5 Bidder 6 Bidder 7 What is the difference between the amount Bidder 2 bids and the amount Bidder 2 pays in equilibrium? 50 O $1,315 $5,600 $3,045 $2,015,400 $5,600 $5,900 $1,500 $3,110 $1,315 O $2,015,400arrow_forward
- Why do sellers generally prefer a Vickrey auction to a regular sealed bid if sellers don’t receive the highest bid in the Vickrey auction? Sellers only have to sell their item if the bid is the highest-price bid. The second-highest bid in a Vickrey auction is generally higher than the highest bid in a regular sealed-bid auction. The second-highest bid is about the same in both auctions. Sellers prefer the final price is not revealed to all bidders. Sellers would never prefer Vickrey auctions.arrow_forwardQuestion 3: Auction Theory a) What is the difference between a common value auction and a private value auction? b) What is meant by the winner’s curse? c) Is there a winner's curse on a private value auction?arrow_forwardIn Las Vegas, roulette is played on a wheel with 38 slots, of which 18 are black, 18 are red, and 2 are green (zero and double-zero). Your friend impulsively takes all $361 out of his pocket and bets it on black, which pays 1 for 1. This means that if the ball lands on one of the 18 black slots, he ends up with $722, and if it doesn't, he ends up with nothing. Once the croupier releases the ball, your friend panics; it turns out that the $361 he bet was literally all the money he has. While he is risk-averse - his utility function is u(x) =, where x is his roulette payoff - you are effectively risk neutral over such small stakes. a. When the ball is still spinning, what is the expected profit for the casino? b. When the ball is still spinning, what is the expected value of your friend's wealth? c. When the ball is still spinning, what is your friend's certainty equivalent (i.e., how much money would he accept with certainty to walk away from his bet). Say you propose the following…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher: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