Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Answers to Homework II - Game Theory | ECON 1200, Assignments of Economics

Material Type: Assignment; Class: GAME THEORY; Subject: Economics; University: University of Pittsburgh; Term: Fall 2008;

Typology: Assignments

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 09/09/2009

koofers-user-4bd
koofers-user-4bd 🇺🇸

2

(1)

10 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
Economics 1200 Fall 2008
Answers to Homework # 2
1. a) [1 point] As in the example in class, suppose the first mover, Player 1, is the
buyer, and the second mover, Player 2, is the seller. In a two round game, Player
1 knows that Player 2, will propose to keep the entire difference, M=$12,000, for
herself in the second and final round. Since the period discount factor δ=.2, Player
1 knows he must give Player 2 δ×$12,000 in round 1 to maker Player 2 indifferent
between accepting in round 1 or waiting to make a counterproposal in round 2,
Thus, Player 1 proposes in round 1 that Player 2 gets (.2)$12,000=$2,400, and
Player 1 gets the remainder, $12,000-$2,400=$9,600 for himself. Player 2 agrees
since there is no benefit to be gained by waiting. Since Player 1 is assumed to be
the buyer, the equilibrium sale price for the home is $188,000+$2,400=$190,400.
If instead Player 1 was assumed to be the seller and Player 2 the buyer, then the
equilibrium sale price for the home would be $200,000-$2,400=$197,600.
b) [1 point] In the infinitely repeated game, we showed in class that if Player 1
(the buyer) moves first, he will propose to keep [(1-d)/(1-d2)]M for himself with
the remainder going to Player 2 (the seller). This proposal will be made in the first
round and is acceptable to Player 2. With δ=.2 player 1 (the buyer) will propose to
keep [(1-.2)/(1-(.2)2)] 12,000 = (5/6)(12,000) = $10,000 for himself with the
remainder, $2,000 going to player 2 (the seller). So the equilibrium sale price in
this case is $190,000 ($188,000+$2,000). Player 1 would prefer an infinite
number of rounds to just a single round since he gets to keep slightly more of M
($400 more) for himself if he is the first mover.
2. a) [1 point] For prisoner’s dilemma, you can use elimination of dominated
strategies or best-response analysis. The only (unique) pure strategy Nash
equilibrium is: Defect, Defect, with a payoff of 40,40.
b) [1 point] In stag hunt, there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria which you
can find by best response analysis. These are: Cooperate, Cooperate with a payoff
of 70,70 and Defect, Defect with a payoff of 40, 40.
c) [1 point] In chicken, there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria which you can
find by best response analysis. These are: Cooperate, Defect with a payoff of
50,80 and Defect, Cooperate with a payoff of 80, 50.
3. a) [1/2 point] Assigning a payoff of 4 to best, 3 to second best, 2 to third best and
1 to worst, the normal form of this game would be written as:
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Answers to Homework II - Game Theory | ECON 1200 and more Assignments Economics in PDF only on Docsity!

Economics 1200 Fall 2008

Answers to Homework # 2

  1. a) [1 point] As in the example in class, suppose the first mover, Player 1, is the buyer, and the second mover, Player 2, is the seller. In a two round game, Player 1 knows that Player 2, will propose to keep the entire difference, M=$12,000, for herself in the second and final round. Since the period discount factor δ=.2, Player 1 knows he must give Player 2 δ×$12,000 in round 1 to maker Player 2 indifferent between accepting in round 1 or waiting to make a counterproposal in round 2, Thus, Player 1 proposes in round 1 that Player 2 gets (.2)$12,000=$2,400, and Player 1 gets the remainder, $12,000-$2,400=$9,600 for himself. Player 2 agrees since there is no benefit to be gained by waiting. Since Player 1 is assumed to be the buyer, the equilibrium sale price for the home is $188,000+$2,400=$190,400. If instead Player 1 was assumed to be the seller and Player 2 the buyer, then the equilibrium sale price for the home would be $200,000-$2,400=$197,600.

b) [1 point] In the infinitely repeated game, we showed in class that if Player 1 (the buyer) moves first, he will propose to keep [(1-d)/(1-d^2 )]M for himself with the remainder going to Player 2 (the seller). This proposal will be made in the first round and is acceptable to Player 2. With δ=.2 player 1 (the buyer) will propose to keep [(1-.2)/(1-(.2) 2 )] 12,000 = (5/6)(12,000) = $10,000 for himself with the remainder, $2,000 going to player 2 (the seller). So the equilibrium sale price in this case is $190,000 ($188,000+$2,000). Player 1 would prefer an infinite number of rounds to just a single round since he gets to keep slightly more of M ($400 more) for himself if he is the first mover.

  1. a) [1 point] For prisoner’s dilemma, you can use elimination of dominated strategies or best-response analysis. The only (unique) pure strategy Nash equilibrium is: Defect, Defect, with a payoff of 40,40.

b) [1 point] In stag hunt, there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria which you can find by best response analysis. These are: Cooperate, Cooperate with a payoff of 70,70 and Defect, Defect with a payoff of 40, 40.

c) [1 point] In chicken, there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria which you can find by best response analysis. These are: Cooperate, Defect with a payoff of 50,80 and Defect, Cooperate with a payoff of 80, 50.

  1. a) [1/2 point] Assigning a payoff of 4 to best, 3 to second best, 2 to third best and 1 to worst, the normal form of this game would be written as:

Sam’s Choice Ball Game Concert Pat’s Ball Game 4,3 3, Choice Concert 1,1 2,

b) [1/2 point] The unique Nash equilibrium for this game, found via best response analysis, is for both players to choose the Ball Game. Pat’s dominant strategy is to choose Ball Game, while Sam does not have a dominant strategy. But Sam, understanding Pat’s strong preference for the game, will know to go to the ball game rather than the concert, even without being able to communicate with Pat.

  1. a) [1 point] The payoff table for the Jack and Jill game should look like this: Jill’s Choice G K L Q R W G 3,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0, K 0,0 2,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0, L 0,0 0,0 6,4 0,0 0,0 0, Q 0,0 0,0 0,0 (^) 3,3 0,0 0, R 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,2 0,

Jack’s Choice

W 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,

The Nash equilibria in pure strategies are all choices that result in an outcome along the diagonal (6 total): (G,G), (K,K), (L,L), (Q,Q), (R,R), (W,W). These can be found using best response analysis.

b) [1/2 point] Focal is a subjective concept as we have observed in class; any of the six equilibria could be focal depending on the underlying common cultural understandings of the two players, though to achieve a focal equilibrium, their expectations would have to converge. One possible candidate is (Q,Q), because it is the only equilibrium that yields both players the same payoff (3), (equity considerations, envy-freeness). Another candidate might be (L,L), as it yields the highest total sum of payoffs (10) (efficiency). Yet another might be (G,G), e.g. in a society that emphasized the importance of being first, etc.

  1. a) [1 point] In the Cournot duopoly game, each firm seeks to maximize profits. The profits for the two firms, 1 and 2, are given by:

( ) [ ( ) ].

( ) [ ( ) ] ,

2 2 1 2 2

1 1 1 2 1 p cq a bq q c q

p cq a bq q cq = − = − + −

Profit maximization by each firm involves taking the derivative of the profit function with respect to the quantity supplied by the firm and setting this derivative equal to zero to find the optimal, profit maximizing price. That is, we set

iii) Notice that the cartel quantity is lower than in the duopoly case, prices are higher as are firm profits. The reason is simple: collusion by the two firms allows them to act as a monopolist, and therefore they can restrict quantity and enjoy monopoly pricing and profits.