Game Theory VL

Lehrveranstaltung UZH WWF (6 Credits), 2013

Lehrveranstaltung UZH WWF (6 Credits), 2013


Fabienne Keller
Diese Lernkarten bieten einen umfassenden Überblick über die Spieltheorie auf Universitätsniveau. Sie behandeln zentrale Konzepte wie Nash-Gleichgewichte, das Rubinstein-Bargaining-Modell und Spiele mit unvollständiger Information. Die Karteikarten erläutern die Axiome von Nash, vergleichen verschiedene Lösungsansätze und erklären, wie Spieler in unterschiedlichen Szenarien optimal handeln. Ideal für Studierende der Volkswirtschaftslehre, die sich auf Prüfungen oder Forschungsprojekte vorbereiten, bieten diese Karten praktische Beispiele und theoretische Grundlagen.
Karten
67
Lernende
5
Sprache
Deutsch
Kategorie
VWL
Stufe
Universität
Erstellt / Aktualisiert
21.02.2013 / 22.07.2020

Cartes-fiches

If mü is the belief of player 2: probability that he is at the left note, given that he is at his information set. 

How do we find mü?

--> picture

a) with what probability is P2's info set reached?

b) with what probability is p2's left node reached? and the right one?

c) What belief mü should player 2 have?

d) given those beliefs, which one is p2's optimal strategy?

a) 2/3

b) left: 2/3, right: 0

c) mü = 1

d) always play L

Assume now that P1 plays a mixed strategy which attaches equal probability to each of her pure strategies. Given this stragey for p1, 

a) With what prob is P2's info set reached?

b) prob for left & right node?

c) mü?

a) 5/6

b) left node: 2/3, right node: 1/6

c) mü = 4/5

....give those beliefs, wich one is p2's optimal strategy?

b) is that strategy, together with p1's strategy, a NE?

c) expected value of L? and of R?

a) ????

b) ????

c) L: 4 x (4/5) + 0 x (1/5) = 16/ 5

R: 3 x (4/5) + (5/5) = 17 / 5

--> R > L

What is the unique solution to all bargaining problems?

The solution, that satisfies Nash's four axioms!

If...

- "you do not leave anything on the table"

- the outcome doesn't depend on the utility function

- one doesn't gets more than the other one

- Assume that you think (x.y) should be the solution and that I tell you that a set of partitions cannot be chosen but (x,y) is still possible. --> you still want (x,y) to be the solution!

What are Nash's four axioms, that lead to the Nash bargaining solution?

1.) Invariance to equivalent utility representations (If we change the utilities according to positive affine transformation, the solution should not change!)

2.) pareto efficiency 

3.) symmetry (if the bargaining problem is symmetric, then both players should be treated the same)

4.) Independance of irrelevant alternatives (options which are not selected should not change the solution of they are no longer available)

To what do this four nash axioms lead?

(Formel für Problemlösung im bargaining)

The solution assigns to the bargaining problem the pair of payoffs that solves the problem:

 

R / F ?

a) If we make on of the player more risk averse (make his utility more concave) the bargaining problem changes and the less risk averse bargainer gets a higher share.

b) Improving a bargainer's outside option will make him better off in the bargaining

a) true

b) true

Describe the Rubinstein's Bargaining Game

 

P1 & P2 play:

- a cake of size one has to be divided. In a starting round, P1 makes a proposal tha P2 can accept or turn down

- if he accepts the cake is split according to this

- if he declines the games moves one round forward and it is now P2 who proposes a share

---> This game can last forever, but time is valuable!!

payoff z, after n round is worth:

delta ^n x Z

(set of Nash equilibria is infinitely large in this game!)

What's rubinsteins bargaining solution?

we solve first for a finite number of periods --> find the SPNE

--> it can be shown that for infinite T, there is a unique SPNE in which:

1 gets 1/ (1+ delta) and 2 gets: delta / (1+delta)

Compare the Nash bargaining solution with the NE in general.

Does the NE fulfill the 4 axioms of the bargaining solution?

1.) Invariance to equ. utility representations: YES

(NE are invariant to affine (=equivalent) utility representations)

2.) pareto efficiency: NO

3.) Symmetry: NO

4.) Independance of irrelevant alternatives: ??

Étudier