1 / 28

380 likes | 2.8k Views

Game Theory Game theory was developed by John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern in 1944 - Economists! One of the fundamental principles of game theory, the idea of equilibrium strategies was developed by John F. Nash, Jr. ( A Beautiful Mind ), a Bluefield, WV native.

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

**Game Theory**• Game theory was developed by John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern in 1944 - • Economists! • One of the fundamental principles of game theory, the idea of equilibrium strategies was developed by John F. Nash, Jr. (A Beautiful Mind), a Bluefield, WV native. • Game theory is a way of looking at a whole range of human behaviors as a game.**Components of a Game**• Games have the following characteristics: • Players • Rules • Payoffs • Based on Information • Outcomes • Strategies**Types of Games**• We classify games into several types. • By the number of players: • By the Rules: • By the Payoff Structure: • By the Amount of Information Available to the players**Games as Defined by the Number of Players:**• 1-person (or game against nature, game of chance) • 2-person • n-person( 3-person & up)**Games as Defined by the Rules:**• These determine the number of options/alternatives in the play of the game. • The payoff matrix has a structure (independent of value) that is a function of the rules of the game. • Thus many games have a 2x2 structure due to 2 alternatives for each player.**Games as Defined by the Payoff Structure:**• Zero-sum • Non-zero sum • (and occasionally Constant sum) • Examples: • Zero-sum • Classic games: Chess, checkers, tennis, poker. • Political Games: Elections, War , Duels ? • Non-zero sum • Classic games: Football (?), D&D, Video games • Political Games: Policy Process**Games defined by information**• In games of perfect information, each player moves sequentially, and knows all previous moves by the opponent. • Chess & checkers are perfect information games • Poker is not • In a game of complete information, the rules are known from the beginning, along with all possible payoffs, but not necessarily chance moves**Strategies**• We also classify the strategies that we employ: • It is natural to suppose that one player will attempt to anticipate what the other player will do. Hence • Minimax - to minimize the maximum loss - a defensive strategy • Maximin - to maximize the minimum gain - an offensive strategy.**Iterated Play**• Games can also have sequential play which lends to more complex strategies. • Tit-for-tat - always respond in kind. • Tat-for-tit - always respond conflictually to cooperation and cooperatively towards conflict.**Game or Nash Equilibria**• Games also often have solutions or equilibrium points. • These are outcomes which, owing to the selection of particular reasonable strategies will result in a determined outcome. • An equilibrium is that point where it is not to either players advantage to unilaterally change his or her mind.**Saddle points**• The Nash equilibrium is also called a saddle point because of the two curves used to construct it: • an upward arching Maximin gain curve • and a downward arc for minimum loss. • Draw in 3-d, this has the general shape of a western saddle (or the shape of the universe; and if you prefer). .**Some Simple Examples**• Battle of the Bismark Sea • Prisoner’s Dilemma • Chicken**The Battle of the Bismarck Sea**• Simple 2x2 Game • US WWII Battle**The Battle of the Bismarck Sea - examined**• This is an excellent example of a two-person zero-sum game with a Nash equilibrium point. • Each side has reason to employ a particular strategy • Maximin for US • Minimax for Japanese). • If both employ these strategies, then the outcome will be Sail North/Watch North.**The Prisoners Dilemma**• The Prisoner’s dilemma is also 2-person game but not a zero-sum game. • It also has an equilibrium point, and that is what makes it interesting. • The Prisoner's dilemma is best interpreted via a “story.”**Alternate Prisoner’s Dilemma Language**Uses Cooperate instead of Confess to denote player cooperation with each other instead of with prosecutor.**What Characterizes a Prisoner’s Dilemma**Uses Cooperate instead of Confess to denote player cooperation with each other instead of with prosecutor.**What makes a Game a Prisoner’s Dilemma?**• We can characterize the set of choices in a PD as: • Temptation (desire to double-cross other player) • Reward (cooperate with other player) • Punishment (play it safe) • Sucker (the player who is double-crossed) • A game is a Prisoner’s Dilemma whenever: • T > R > P > S • Or Temptation > Reward > Punishment > Sucker**What is the Outcome of a PD?**• The saddle point is where both Confess • This is the result of using a Minimax strategy. • Two aspects of the game can make a difference. • The game assumes no communication • The strategies can be altered if there is sufficient trust between the players.**Solutions to PD?**• The Reward option is the joint optimal payoff. • Can Prisoner’s reach this? • Minimax strategies make this impossible • Are there other strategies?**Iterated Play**• The PD is a single decision game in which the Nash equilibrium results from a dominant strategy. • In iterated play (a series of PDs), conditional strategies can be selected**Chicken**• The game that we call chicken is widely played in everyday life • bicycles • Cars • James Dean – variant • Mad Max • Interpersonal relations • And more…**Chicken is an Unstable game**• There is no saddle point in the game. • No matter what the players choose, at least one player can unilaterally change for some advantage. • Chicken is therefore unstable. • We cannot predict the outcome

More Related