UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/19 3/12.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Pondering more Problems. Enriching the Alice-Bob story Go to AGo to B Go to A Alice Go to B Go to A Go to B Go shoot pool Alice.
Advertisements

Basics on Game Theory Class 2 Microeconomics. Introduction Why, What, What for Why Any human activity has some competition Human activities involve actors,
Game Theory Assignment For all of these games, P1 chooses between the columns, and P2 chooses between the rows.
This Segment: Computational game theory Lecture 1: Game representations, solution concepts and complexity Tuomas Sandholm Computer Science Department Carnegie.
© 2009 Institute of Information Management National Chiao Tung University Game theory The study of multiperson decisions Four types of games Static games.
Chapter Twenty-Eight Game Theory. u Game theory models strategic behavior by agents who understand that their actions affect the actions of other agents.
Simultaneous- Move Games with Mixed Strategies Zero-sum Games.
Game Theory “I Used to Think I Was Indecisive - But Now I’m Not So Sure” - Anonymous Mike Shor Lecture 5.
Chapter 10 Game Theory and Strategic Behavior
Eponine Lupo.  Questions from last time  3 player games  Games larger than 2x2—rock, paper, scissors  Review/explain Nash Equilibrium  Nash Equilibrium.
EC941 - Game Theory Lecture 7 Prof. Francesco Squintani
Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Zero-Sum Games (follow-up)
ECO290E: Game Theory Lecture 9 Subgame Perfect Equilibrium.
Game-theoretic analysis tools Necessary for building nonmanipulable automated negotiation systems.
M9302 Mathematical Models in Economics Instructor: Georgi Burlakov 3.1.Dynamic Games of Complete but Imperfect Information Lecture
An Introduction to Game Theory Part I: Strategic Games
Dynamic Games of Complete Information.. Repeated games Best understood class of dynamic games Past play cannot influence feasible actions or payoff functions.
Eponine Lupo.  Game Theory is a mathematical theory that deals with models of conflict and cooperation.  It is a precise and logical description of.
Algoritmi per Sistemi Distribuiti Strategici
Basics on Game Theory For Industrial Economics (According to Shy’s Plan)
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/21 3/7.
More on Extensive Form Games. Histories and subhistories A terminal history is a listing of every play in a possible course of the game, all the way to.
Game theory The study of multiperson decisions Four types of games
Job Market Signaling (Spence model)
An introduction to game theory Today: The fundamentals of game theory, including Nash equilibrium.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
Static Games of Complete Information: Subgame Perfection
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/23 3/2.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
UNIT III: MONOPOLY & OLIGOPOLY Monopoly Oligopoly Strategic Competition 7/20.
UNIT III: COMPETITIVE STRATEGY Monopoly Oligopoly Strategic Behavior 7/21.
Nash Equilibrium - definition A mixed-strategy profile σ * is a Nash equilibrium (NE) if for every player i we have u i (σ * i, σ * -i ) ≥ u i (s i, σ.
Game Applications Chapter 29. Nash Equilibrium In any Nash equilibrium (NE) each player chooses a “best” response to the choices made by all of the other.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/23 3/9.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
UNIT III: COMPETITIVE STRATEGY
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/19 3/5.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
An introduction to game theory Today: The fundamentals of game theory, including Nash equilibrium.
EC941 - Game Theory Prof. Francesco Squintani Lecture 2 1.
1. problem set 6 from Osborne’s Introd. To G.T. p.210 Ex p.234 Ex p.337 Ex. 26,27 from Binmore’s Fun and Games.
UNIT III: MONOPOLY & OLIGOPOLY Monopoly Oligopoly Strategic Competition 7/28.
Chapter 9 Games with Imperfect Information Bayesian Games.
Social Choice Session 7 Carmen Pasca and John Hey.
Bargaining Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want …; and.
Standard and Extended Form Games A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor, SIUC.
Games with Imperfect Information Bayesian Games. Complete versus Incomplete Information So far we have assumed that players hold the correct belief about.
Dynamic Games & The Extensive Form
Game-theoretic analysis tools Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University.
Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Lecture 2: two-person non.
Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks Introduction Giovanni Neglia.
Chapters 29, 30 Game Theory A good time to talk about game theory since we have actually seen some types of equilibria last time. Game theory is concerned.
Extensive Games with Imperfect Information
ECO290E: Game Theory Lecture 13 Dynamic Games of Incomplete Information.
Strategic Behavior in Business and Econ Static Games of complete information: Dominant Strategies and Nash Equilibrium in pure and mixed strategies.
Subgames and Credible Threats (with perfect information) Econ 171.
Zero-sum Games The Essentials of a Game Extensive Game Matrix Game Dominant Strategies Prudent Strategies Solving the Zero-sum Game The Minimax Theorem.
Dynamic games, Stackelburg Cournot and Bertrand
Pondering more Problems. Enriching the Alice-Bob story Go to AGo to B Go to A Alice Go to B Go to A Go to B Go shoot pool Alice.
ECO290E: Game Theory Lecture 3 Why and How is Nash Equilibrium Reached?
Lec 23 Chapter 28 Game Theory.
ECO290E: Game Theory Lecture 8 Games in Extensive-Form.
ECO290E: Game Theory Lecture 10 Examples of Dynamic Games.
Game theory basics A Game describes situations of strategic interaction, where the payoff for one agent depends on its own actions as well as on the actions.
Chapter 29 Game Theory Key Concept: Nash equilibrium and Subgame Perfect Nash equilibrium (SPNE)
Molly W. Dahl Georgetown University Econ 101 – Spring 2009
UNIT II: The Basic Theory
Presentation transcript:

UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/19 3/12

Prudent v. Best-Response Strategies Problem Sets 1 & 2 Graduate Assignment Review

Opera Fight O F O F (2,1) (0,0) (0,0) (1,2) Player 1 Player 2 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 O F O F Battle of the Sexes Review Compare best response and prudent strategies.

Opera Fight O F O F (2,1) (0,0) (0,0) (1,2) Player 1 Player 2 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 O F O F Battle of the Sexes Review NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); } Find all the NE of the game. NE = {(O,O); (F,F); } Both are correct

O F P1P1 P221P221 Battle of the Sexes Mixed Nash Equilibrium Review O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 NE (1,1) NE (0,0) 1 2 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); (MNE)}

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 O F NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {1/3, 2/3)} Battle of the Sexes Review Let (p,1-p) = prob 1 (O, F ) (q,1-q) = prob 2 (O, F ) Then EP 1 (Olq) = 2q EP 1 (Flq) = 1-1q q* = 1/3 EP 2 (Olp) = 1p EP 2 (Flp) = 2-2p p* = 2/3

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes EP 1 2/3 0 2 p=1 p=0 Review NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} EP 1 = 2q +0(1-q) Player 1’s Expected Payoff

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes EP 1 1 2/ p=1 p=0 Review p=1 p=0 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Player 1’s Expected Payoff

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes EP 1 1 2/ p=1 p=0 Review p=1 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} EP 1 = 0q+1 (1-q) Player 1’s Expected Payoff

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes EP 1 1 2/ p=1 p=0 Review Opera Fight NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Player 1’s Expected Payoff

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes EP 1 1 2/ p=1 p=0 Review p=1 p=0 0<p<1 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Player 1’s Expected Payoff

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes 2020 p=1 p=0 Review p=1 p=0 p = 2/3 4/3 EP 1 2/3 1/3 If Player 1 uses her (mixed) b-r strategy (p=2/3), her expected payoff varies from 1/3 to 4/3. NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )}

q=1 q=0 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes 2020 p=1 p=0 Review p=1 p=0 EP 1 2/3 1/3 2/3 If Player 2 uses his (mixed) b-r strategy (q=1/3), the expected payoff to Player 1 is 2/3, for all p. q = 1/3 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} 4/3

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 O F Battle of the Sexes Review Find the prudent strategy for each player. q* = 2/3 Prudent strategies: 1/3; 2/3

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 O F Battle of the Sexes Review Let (p,1-p) = prob 1 (O, F ) (q,1-q) = prob 2 (O, F ) Then EP 1 (Olp) = 2p EP 1 (Flp) = 1-1p p* = 1/3 EP 2 (Oiq) = 1q EP 2 (Flq) = 2-2q q* = 2/3 Prudent strategies: 1/3; 2/3

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes 2020 O F Review p=1 p=0 p = 2/3 4/3 If Player 1 uses her prudent strategy (p=1/3), expected payoff is 2/3 no matter what player 2 does NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )} EP 1 2/3 1/3 2/3 p = 1/3

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes 2020 O F Review p=1 p=0 p = 2/3 4/3 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )} EP 1 2/3 1/3 2/3 q = 1/3 2/3 If both players use (mixed) b-r strategies, expected payoff is 2/3 for each. p = 1/3

O F P1P1 P /3 Battle of the Sexes Review O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 NE (1,1) NE (0,0) 2/3 1 2 If both players use (mixed) b-r strategies, expected payoff is 2/3 for each. NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )}

O F P1P1 P /3 Battle of the Sexes Review O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 NE (1,1) NE (0,0) 2/3 1 2 If both players use prudent strategies, expected payoff is 2/3 for each. NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )}

O F P1P1 P /3 Battle of the Sexes Review O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 NE (1,1) NE (0,0) 2/3 1 2 NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )} Is the pair of prudent strategies an equilibrium?

O F 2, 1 0, 0 0, 0 1, 2 q Battle of the Sexes 2020 O F Review p=1 p=0 p = 2/3 4/3 Player 1’s best response to Player 2’s prudent strategy (q=2/3) is Opera (p=1). NE = {(1, 1); (0, 0); ( 2/3,1/3 )} Prudent: {( 1/3, 2/3 )} EP 1 2/3 1/3 2/3 q = 1/3 2/3 Opera p = 1/3 Therefore not an equilibrium!

Review [I]f game theory is to provide a […] solution to a game- theoretic problem then the solution must be a Nash equilibrium in the following sense. Suppose that game theory makes a unique prediction about the strategy each player will choose. In order for this prediction to be correct, it is necessary that each player be willing to choose the strategy predicted by the theory. Thus each player’s predicted strategy must be that player’s best response to the predicted strategies of the other players. Such a prediction could be called strategically stable or self- enforcing, because no single player wants to deviate from his or her predicted strategy (Gibbons: 8).

Review SADDLEPOINT v. NASH EQUILIBRIUM STABILITY:Is it self-enforcing?YES UNIQUENESS: Does it identify an unambiguous course of action? YES NO EFFICIENCY: Is it at least as good as any other outcome for all players? --- (YES) NOT ALWAYS SECURITY: Does it ensure a minimum payoff? YES NO EXISTENCE: Does a solution always exist for the class of games? YESYES

Review 1.Indeterminacy: Nash equilibria are not usually unique. 2. Inefficiency: Even when they are unique, NE are not always efficient. Problems of Nash Equilibrium

Review T 1 T 2 S 1 S 2 5,5 0,1 1,0 3,3 Multiple and Inefficient Nash Equilibria When is it advisable to play a prudent strategy in a nonzero-sum game? What do we need to know/believe about the other player? Problems of Nash Equilibrium

Review T 1 T 2 S 1 S 2 5,5 -99,1 1,-99 3,3 Multiple and Inefficient Nash Equilibria When is it advisable to play a prudent strategy in a nonzero-sum game? What do we need to know/believe about the other player? Problems of Nash Equilibrium

Review Dominant Strategy: A strategy that is best no matter what the opponent(s) choose(s). Prudent Strategy: A prudent strategy maximizes the minimum payoff a player can get from playing different strategies. Such a strategy is simply max s min t P(s,t) for player i. Mixed Strategy: A mixed strategy for player i is a probability distribution over all strategies available to player i. Best Response Str’gy: A strategy, s’, is a best response strategy iff P i (s’,t) > P i (s,t) for all s. Dominated Strategy:A strategy is dominated if it is never a best response strategy.

Review Saddlepoint: A set of prudent strategies (one for each player), s. t. (s*, t*) is a saddlepoint, iff maxmin = minmax. Nash Equilibrium: a set of best response strategies (one for each player), (s’,t’) such that s’ is a best response to t’ and t’ is a b.r. to s’. Subgame: a part (or subset) of an extensive game, starting at a singleton node (not the initial node) and continuing to payoffs. Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium (SPNE): a NE achieved by strategies that also constitute NE in each subgame. eliminates NE in which the players threats are not credible.