• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Game Theory
 

Game Theory

on

  • 5,840 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,840
Views on SlideShare
5,773
Embed Views
67

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
461
Comments
0

3 Embeds 67

https://mybu.bournemouth.ac.uk 53
http://www.slideshare.net 13
https://bbprod.stjohns.edu 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

Game Theory Game Theory Presentation Transcript

  • Game Theory and Strategic Behavior
    • Developed in 1950s by mathematicians John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern
    • Designed to evaluate situations where individuals and organizations can have conflicting objectives
    • Any situation with two or more people requiring decision making can be called a game.
    • A game is a description of strategic interaction that includes the constraints on the actions that the players can take and the players’ interests, but does not specify the actions that players do take.
    • A strategy is a course of action taken by one of the participants in a game
    • Payoff is the result or outcome of the strategy
    • Game theory is about choices (finite). While game theory cannot often determine the best possible strategy, it can determine whether there exists one.
    • Game theorists may assume players always act in a way to directly maximize their wins (the Homo economicus model)
    • Objective – Increase profits by price change
    • Strategies
    • Maintain prices at the present level
    • Increase prices
    • Above matrix shows the outcomes or payoffs that result from each combination of strategies adopted by the two participants in the game
    No Price Change Price Increase No Price Change Price Increase Firm 2 Firm 1 10, 10 100, -30 -20, 30 140, 35
    • Defined as a set of strategies such that none of the participants in the game can improve their payoff, given the strategies of the other participants.
    • Identify equilibrium conditions where the rates of output allowed the firms to maximize profits and hence no need to change.
    • No price change is an equilibrium because neither firm can benefit by increasing its prices if the other firm does not
    • For some games, there may be no Nash equilibrium; continuously switch from one strategy to another
    • There can be more than one equilibrium
    Firm 2 Firm 1 No Price Change No Price Change Price Increase Price Increase Both firms increasing their price is also a Nash equilibrium 10, 10 100, -30 -20, 30 140, 25
    • One firm’s best strategy may not depend on the choice made by the other participants in the game
    • Leads to Nash equilibrium because the player will use the dominant strategy and the other will respond with its best alternative
    • Firm 2’s dominant strategy is not to change price regardless of what Firm 1 does
    • An alternative that yields a lower payoff than some other strategies
    • a strategy is dominated if it is always better to play some other strategy, regardless of what opponents may do
    • It simplifies the game because they are options available to players which may be safely discarded as a result of being strictly inferior to other options.
    • A strategy s¡ in set S is strictly dominated for
    • player i if there exists another strategy, s¡’ in S such that,
    • Π i(s¡’) > Π i(s¡)
    • In this case, we say that s¡’ strictly dominates s¡
    • In the previous example for Firm 2 no price change is a dominant strategy and price change is a dominated strategy
    • Highly competitive situations (oligopoly)
    • Risk-averse strategy – worst possible outcome is as beneficial as possible, regardless of other players
    • Select option that maximizes the minimum possible profit
    • Each firm first determines the minimum profit that could result from each strategy
    • Second, selects the maximum of the minimums
    • Hence, neither firm should introduce a new product because guaranteed a profit of at least $3 million
    • Maximin outcome not Nash equilibrium- loss avoidance rather than profit maximization
    Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 2 Minimum Firm 1 Minimum New Product No New Product No New Product New Product 3 2 2 3 4, 4 3, 6 6, 3 2, 2
    • Pure strategy – Each participant selects one course of action
    • Mixed strategy requires randomly mixing different alternatives
    • Every finite game will have at least one equilibrium
    • Non cooperative games
    • Cooperative games
    • Repeated games
    • Sequential games
    • Not possible to negotiate with other participants
    • Because the two participants are interrogated separately, they have no idea whether the other person will confess or not
    • Possibility of negotiations between participants for a particular strategy
    • If prisoners jointly decide on not confessing, they would avoid spending any time in jail
    • Such games are a way to avoid prisoner’s dilemma
    • Yet another way to escape prisoner’s dilemma
    • If exercise is repeated multiple times, reactions become predictable
    • Acc. to eg in PD, both firms select high advertising & capture max. profit
    • But, if this exercise is repeated, outcomes may change
    • Advantage becomes temporary
    • Winning strategy- ‘tit for tat’
    • Infinitely Repeated Game
      • Co-operative behaviour is a rational response to a tit for tat strategy
    • Finite Number of Repetitions
      • Strategise to take action in the last period of time in order to have a long term effect
    • One player acts first & then the other responds
    • 2 firms contemplating the introduction of an identical product in the market
    • 1 st firm- develop brand loyalties, associate product with the firm in minds of consumers
    • Thus, first mover advantage
    • Assume firms use maximum criterion, so neither should introduce a new product and earn $2 mn each
    • Firm 1 introduces a new product, firm 2 will still decide to stay out because right now it is losing $5 mn, opposed to $7 mn otherwise.
    Firm 2 No new product Introduce new product Firm 1 No new product $2, $2 $-5, $10 Introduce new product $10, $-5 $-7, $-7