EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 17.3P
a
To determine
Pure strategy Nash quilibria.
b)
To determine
Pure strategy Nsh equilibria when players prefer fairness
c)
To determine
Pure strategy Nash equilibria when new preferences are made.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Suppose that two bears play a Hawk-Dove
game as discussed in class. The payoff to
each bear is -6 if both play Hawk. If both play
Dove, the payoff to each bear is 3, and if one
plays Hawk and the other plays Dove, the one
that plays Hawk gets a payoff of 8 and the
one that plays Dove gets 0.
Describe the pure strategy and mixed strategy
Nash equilibria in this game? What are the
utilities to each bear in the mixed strategy
Nash equilibria?
Consider a game between 2 payers (Ann and Bill) where each chooses between 3 actions (Up, Middle and Down).
1) Create a payoff matrix that reflects this.
2) Fill in payoff numbers that makes this game a Prisoner's Dilemma.
3) Explain why your game is a Prisoner's Dilemma.
Some collector has a painting that he no longer values. However, there are two buyers that would be happy to acquire it. Buyer 1 assigns a value of $900 to the painting, and buyer 2 of $1,000.
Explain that this situation can be represented as a cooperative game with transferable utility. Obtain the set of players and write down the characteristic function (supposing that the grand coalition’s value is $1000).
Find the Core and the Shapley value of the 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
- In 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.arrow_forwardConsider the “trust game” discussed in class. The first player starts with a $100 endowment and chooses how much to give to the second player. The gift triples in value (i.e. if $20 is given, the second player receives $60). The second player then chooses how much to give back. The first player receives exactly how much is returned (i.e. if $40 is returned, the first player receives $40). The Nash equilibrium of the game is: Group of answer choices: -First player gives $100, second player returns nothing. -First player gives $50, second player returns $50. -First player gives $100, second player returns $300. -There is no Nash equilibrium of this game. -First player gives nothing, second player returns nothing.arrow_forwardMartin has a brother and can take a selfish action, which pays him $10 and his brother $0, or an altruistic action, which pays him $6 and his brother $6. The parents love their children equally and decide how to distribute $20 between them. The parents' payment is the minimum of their two children's payments. Assume that the game is simultaneous. Find the Nash equilibrium.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_forwardHere is a payoff matrix that is interesting. I am not in an imaginative mood, so I won't try to tell a story about why the payoffs come out this way. Find all the pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Is this a game where you expect that players would end up in a Nash equilibrium? What would you expect to happen and why? Row Top Row Bottom Column Left 4, -3000 12,8 Column Right 10,6 5, 4arrow_forwardThere 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.1arrow_forward
- Consider a normal form game in which player 1 has three strategies, A1, B1, C1 and player 2 has three strategies, A2, B2, C2. Suppose that A1 is a best response to B2, B1 is a best response to A2, A2 is a best response to B1, and B2 is a best response to A1. Do we know with certainty whether A1 is rationalizable or not?arrow_forwardQuestion 1 Consider the following game. Player 1 has 3 actions (Top, middle,Bottom) and player 2 has three actions (Left, Middle, Right). Each player chooses their action simultaneously. The game is played only once. The first element of the payoff vector is player 1’s payoff. Note that one of the payoffs to player 2 has been omitted (denoted by x). 1. Determine the range of values for x such that Player 2 has a strictly dominant strategy.arrow_forwardConsider the following game: you and a partner on a school project are asked to evaluate the other, privately rating them either "1 (Good)" or "0 (Bad)". After all the ratings have been done, a bonus pot of $1000 is given to the person with the highest number of points. If there is a tie, the pool is split evenly. Both players only get utility from money. Mark all of the following true statements: A. The best response to your partner rating you as Good is to rate them as Good as well. Your answer B. There is no best response in this game. C. Your partner's best response to you rating them as Bad is to also rate you as C Bad. D. Your best response to any strategy of your partner is to play "Good".arrow_forward
- Question 1 Consider the following game. Player 1 has 3 actions (Top, middle,Bottom) and player 2 has three actions (Left, Middle, Right). Each player chooses their action simultaneously. The game is played only once. The first element of the payoff vector is player 1’s payoff. Note that one of the payoffs to player 2 has been omitted (denoted by x). A) Suppose that the value of x is such that player 2 has a strictly dominant strategy. Find the solution to the game. What solution concept did you use to solve the game? B) Suppose that the value of x is such the player 2 does NOT have a strictly dominant strategy. Find the solution to the game. What solution concept did you use to solve the game?arrow_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_forwardProblem 3. Consider the following two-player game. Player 1 (the row player) has three strategies {U, F, D}, and Player 2 (the column player) has four strategies {L, M, N, R}. In each cell, the first number is the pay-off of Player 1, and the second is that of Player 2. There is an unknown x in the table. Consider pure strategies only. U F D L (0, 3) (6,0) (3, 1) M (1,0) (5, 1) (4,2) N (2,5) (x, 2) (1, 1) R (4,2) (5, 1) (1, 3) (1) Find a number x such that {F, N} is the unique Nash equilibrium. (2) Find a number x such that the game has more than one Nash equilibria. What are these Nash equilibria in this case? (3) Is it possible to find a number x such that the game has no Nash equilibrium? For each of your answers above, an explanation needs to be provided.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: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher: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
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506381
Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris
Publisher:Cengage Learning