Re: Game Theory question
- From: "Willem H. de Boer" <wdeboer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:27:21 +0200
> The better for players 1 and 2 is to play the same strategy, getting an
> average pay-off (-1/2).
Yes, that's exactly what I got as well. Actually, that's the same game
as the game between only 1 player and player 3. In that case the optimal
(mixed) strategy for player 1 is the entire domain of mixed strategies
lambda*S1 + (1-lambda)*S2 (lambda \in [0,1]) because the pay-off
will be -1/2 anyway.
Okay, it seems this problem is a bit ill-defined, I left out one more bit,
which is that player 1 knows exactly the outcomes of all the games
ever played, and while player 2 doesn't, they could take advantage of
this (ie., cooperate) to maximise their pay-offs...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Game Theory question
- From: Philippe Genthon
- Re: Game Theory question
- References:
- Game Theory question
- From: Willem H. de Boer
- Re: Game Theory question
- From: Willem H. de Boer
- Re: Game Theory question
- From: Philippe Genthon
- Game Theory question
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about Lebesque Integral
- Next by Date: Re: When does weak convergence imply strong convergence?
- Previous by thread: Re: Game Theory question
- Next by thread: Re: Game Theory question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|