Game Theory VL
Lehrveranstaltung UZH WWF (6 Credits), 2013
Lehrveranstaltung UZH WWF (6 Credits), 2013
-
- 1 / 67
-
Flashcards
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)
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!)
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: ??