EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 17.4P
a)
To determine
To compute:The pure Nash equilibria if the players in the game only careabout the monetary payoffs.
b)
To determine
To calculatethe pure strategy Nash equilibria if the players have extreme preferences for fairness if each player loses 10 utils for each dollar difference between their payoffs
c)
To determine
To computethe pure strategy Nash equilibria given thatthe players have different preferences of fairness than in above.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Suppose that you and a friend play a matching pennies game in which each of you
uncovers a penny. If both pennies show heads or both show tails, you keep both. If one shows
heads and the other shows tails, your friend keeps them. Show the pay- off matrix. What, if
any, is the pure-strategy Nash equilibrium to this game? Is there a mixed-strategy Nash
equilibrium? If so, what is it?
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?
See the extensive form game in the image attached (the payoffs of player 1 are written on top and the payoffs of player 2 are on the bottom).
a) Write this game in normal form (a player's strategy is a complete contingent plan that tells them what to play at each of their information sets)
(b) Find all the Nash equilibria of the normal form game from part (a)
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
- Describe the game and find all Nash equilibria in the following situation: Each of two players chooses a non-negative number. In the choice (a1, a2), the payoff of the first player is equal to a1(a2 - a1), and the payoff of the second player is equal to a2(1 – a1 – a2).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_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_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_forwardIn '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_forwardExplain 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_forward
- Imagine two vendors (our players) who must simultaneously choose a location to position their displays. There are n possible locations that form a straight line. Further, there is one customer at each location, and customers will choose the closest vendor (and split their time at each vendor if they're equally distanced from both). The profit for each vendor equals the number of customers they attract. Using iterated elimination of dominated strategies (IEDS), what is the dominant strategy equilibrium? Explain. 2.arrow_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_forwardSuppose two players play a two-period repeated game, where the stage game is the normal-form game shown below. Is there a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in which the players select (A, X) in the first period? If so, fully describe such equilibrium. If not, explain why not. Player 1 has choice A, B; Player 2 has choice X, Y, Z. Payoff: (A,X)-(5,7), (A,Y)-(2,4), (A,Z)-(3,8), (B,X)-(1,4), (B,Y)-(3,5), (B,Z)-(1,4)arrow_forward
- Consider the game below for Player 1 and Player 2. For each cell in the game table, explain why or why not that cell (and its associated strategies) can or cannot be a Nash equilibrium. Given your answer, determine the Nash equilibrium/equilibria and Nash equilibrium outcome(s), if it exists.arrow_forwardTwo individuals are bargaining over the distribution of $100 in which payoffs must be in increments of $5. Each player must submit a one-time bid. If the sum of the bids is less than or equal to $100, each player gets the amount of the bid and the game ends. If the sum of the bids is greater than $100, the game ends and the players get nothing. Does this game have a Nash equilibrium? What is the most likely equilibrium strategy profile for this game?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). 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_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