Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For instance if a player prefers "Yes", then that set of strategies is not a Nash equilibrium. But if every player prefers not to switch (or is indifferent between switching and not) then the strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium. Thus, each strategy in a Nash equilibrium is a best response to the other players' strategies in that equilibrium ...
However, many games do have pure strategy Nash equilibria (e.g. the Coordination game, the Prisoner's dilemma, the Stag hunt). Further, games can have both pure strategy and mixed strategy equilibria. An easy example is the pure coordination game, where in addition to the pure strategies (A,A) and (B,B) a mixed equilibrium exists in which both ...
A Nash equilibrium is a strategy profile (a strategy profile specifies a strategy for every player, e.g. in the above prisoners' dilemma game (cooperate, defect) specifies that prisoner 1 plays cooperate and prisoner 2 plays defect) in which every strategy played by every agent (agent i) is a best response to every other strategy played by all the other opponents (agents j for every j≠i) .
The Lemke–Howson algorithm is an algorithm that computes a Nash equilibrium of a bimatrix game, named after its inventors, Carlton E. Lemke and J. T. Howson. [1] It is said to be "the best known among the combinatorial algorithms for finding a Nash equilibrium", [2] although more recently the Porter-Nudelman-Shoham algorithm [3] has outperformed on a number of benchmarks.
In game theory, the best response is the strategy (or strategies) which produces the most favorable outcome for a player, taking other players' strategies as given. [1] The concept of a best response is central to John Nash's best-known contribution, the Nash equilibrium, the point at which each player in a game has selected the best response (or one of the best responses) to the other players ...
The two pure strategy Nash equilibria are unfair; one player consistently does better than the other. The mixed strategy Nash equilibrium is inefficient: the players will miscoordinate with probability 13/25, leaving each player with an expected return of 6/5 (less than the payoff of 2 from each's less favored pure strategy equilibrium).
A Nash equilibrium exists when: (,,,) = (/, /, /, /) This determines one unique equilibrium where Player X plays a random mixture of 0 for 1/2 of the time and 1 the other 1/2 of the time. Player Y plays the pure strategy of 1/2.
Set up the inequality to determine whether the mixed strategy will dominate the pure strategy based on expected payoffs. u 1 / 2 Y + u 1 / 2 Z ⩼ u X. 4 + 5 > 5 Mixed strategy 1 / 2 Y and 1 / 2 Z will dominate pure strategy X for Player 2, and thus X can be eliminated from the rationalizable strategies for P2.