1 / 24

Game Theory

Game Theory. Mike Shor Lecture 6. “Доверяй, Но Проверяй” (“Trust, but Verify”). - Russian Proverb (Ronald Reagan). Repeated Interaction. Review Simultaneous games Put yourself in your opponent’s shoes Iterative reasoning Sequential games Look forward and reason back

johana
Download Presentation

Game Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Game Theory Mike ShorLecture 6 “Доверяй, Но Проверяй” (“Trust, but Verify”) - Russian Proverb (Ronald Reagan)

  2. Repeated Interaction • Review • Simultaneous games • Put yourself in your opponent’s shoes • Iterative reasoning • Sequential games • Look forward and reason back • Sequentially rational reasoning • Outline: • What if interaction is repeated? • What strategies can lead players to cooperate?

  3. The Prisoner’s Dilemma Equilibrium: $54 K Cooperation: $60 K

  4. Prisoner’s Dilemma • Private rationalitycollective irrationality • The equilibrium that arises from using dominant strategies is worse for every player than the outcome that would arise if every player used her dominated strategy instead • Goal: • To sustain mutually beneficial cooperative outcome overcoming incentives to cheat (A note about tacit collusion)

  5. Moving Beyond the Prisoner’s Dilemma • Why does the dilemma occur? • Interaction • No fear of punishment • Short term or myopic play • Firms: • Lack of monopoly power • Homogeneity in products and costs • Overcapacity • Incentives for profit or market share • Consumers • Price sensitive • Price aware • Low switching costs

  6. Altering Interaction • Interaction • No fear of punishment • Exploit repeated play • Short term or myopic play • Introduce repeated encounters • Introduce uncertainty

  7. Finite Interaction (Silly Theoretical Trickery) • Suppose the market relationship lasts for only T periods • Use backward induction (rollback) • Tth period: no incentive to cooperate • No future loss to worry about in last period • T-1th period: no incentive to cooperate • No cooperation in Tth period in any case • No opportunity cost to cheating in period T-1 • Unraveling: logic goes back to period 1

  8. Finite Interaction • Cooperation is impossible if the relationship between players is for a fixedandknown length of time. • But, people think forward if … • Game length uncertain • Game length unknown • Game length too long

  9. Finite Interaction (Theoretical Aside) • Unraveling prevents cooperation if the number of periods is fixed and known • Probabilistic termination • The “game” continues to the next period with some probability p: • Equivalent to infinite game • $1 next year is worth now • Value of future = { value if there is a future }  { probability of a future } • Effective interest rate: r’ =

  10. Long-Term Interaction • No last period, so no rollback • Use history-dependent strategies • Trigger strategies: • Begin by cooperating • Cooperate as long as the rivals do • Upon observing a defection: immediately revert to a period of punishment of specified length in which everyone plays non-cooperatively

  11. Two Trigger Strategies • Grim trigger strategy • Cooperate until a rival deviates • Once a deviation occurs, play non-cooperatively for the rest of the game • Tit-for-tat • Cooperate if your rival cooperated in the most recent period • Cheat if your rival cheated in the most recent period

  12. Tit-for-Tat is most forgiving shortest memory proportional credible but lacks deterrence Tit-for-tat answers: “Is cooperation easy?” Grim trigger is least forgiving longest memory MAD adequate deterrence but lacks credibility Grim trigger answers: “Is cooperation possible?” Trigger Strategy Extremes

  13. Why Cooperate (Against GTS)? • Cooperate if the present value of cooperation is greater than the present value of defection • Cooperate: 60 today, 60 next year, 60 … 60 • Defect: 72 today, 54 next year, 54 … 54 Firm 2

  14. Payoff Stream (GTS) profit 72 cooperate 60 defect 54 t t+1 t+2 t+3 time

  15. Aside: Discounting • Discounting: • Present-day value of future profits is less than value of current profits • r is the interest rate • Invest $1 today  get $(1+r) next year • Annuity paying $1 today and $1 every year has a net present value of $1/r

  16. Aside: Infinite Sums • 1+ x+ x2 + x3 + x4 + … = • Why? z = 1+ x+ x2 + x3 + x4 + … zx = x+ x2 + x3 + x4 + … z- zx = 1 z =

  17. Calculus of GTS • Cooperate if • Cooperation is sustainable using grim trigger strategies as long as r < 50% • Or … as long as $1 invested today does not return more than $1.50 next period > > > > < PV(cooperation) 60…60…60…60… 60 + 60/r 6/r r PV(defection) 72…54…54…54… 72 + 54/r 12 6/12 = 50%

  18. defectonce Payoff Stream (TFT) profit 72 cooperate 60 defect 54 47 t t+1 t+2 t+3 time

  19. Calculus of TFT • Cooperate if • Much harder to sustain than grim trigger • Cooperation may not be likely PV(cooperation) PV(cooperation) 60…60…60…60… 60 + 60/(1+r) 13/(1+r) 13 r PV(defection) PV(defect once) 72…47…60…60… 72 + 47/(1+r) 12 12 + 12r 1/12 = 8.3% > and > > > > > <

  20. Trigger Strategies • Grim Trigger and Tit-for-Tat are extremes • Balance two goals: Deterrence • GTS is adequate punishment • Tit-for-tat might be too little Credibility • GTS hurts the punisher too much • Tit-for-tat is credible

  21. Optimal Punishment COMMANDMENT In announcing a punishment strategy: Punish enough to deter your opponent. Temper punishment to remain credible.

  22. Axelrod’s Simulation • R. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation • Prisoner’s Dilemma repeated 200 times • Economists submitted strategies • Pairs of strategies competed • Winner: Tit-for-Tat • Reasons: • Forgiving, Nice, Provocable, Clear

  23. Main Ideas from Axelrod • Not necessarily tit-for-tat • Doesn’t always work • Don’t be envious • Don’t be the first to cheat • Reciprocate opponent’s behavior • Cooperation and defection • Don’t be too clever

  24. Summary • Cooperation • Struggle between high profits today and a lasting relationship into the future • Deterrence • A clear, provocable policy of punishment • Credibility • Must incorporate forgiveness • Looking ahead: • How to be credible?

More Related