Meni_Rosenfeld comments on Swords and Armor: A Game Theory Thought Experiment - Less Wrong

14 Post author: nick012000 12 October 2010 08:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Steve_Rayhawk 12 October 2010 12:10:18PM *  20 points [-]

Gambit said the only equilibrium was mixed, with 1/5 each of (blue sword, blue armor), (blue sword, green armor), (yellow sword, yellow armor), (green sword, yellow armor), and (green sword, green armor).

With a stylin' bonus of ε points per duel (if a win is 1 point and a loss is −1 points), Gambit says for ε≤1/4 the equilibrium is:
(blue sword, blue armor): 1/5−(4/5)ε
(blue sword, green armor): 1/5−(3/5)ε
(yellow sword, yellow armor): 1/5+(4/5)ε
(green sword, yellow armor): 1/5+(3/5)ε
(green sword, green armor): 1/5

Comment author: Meni_Rosenfeld 14 October 2010 10:57:06PM 0 points [-]

Gambit said the only equilibrium was mixed, with 1/5 each of (blue sword, blue armor), (blue sword, green armor), (yellow sword, yellow armor), (green sword, yellow armor), and (green sword, green armor).

FWIW, my calculations confirm this - you beat me to posting. One nitpick - this is not the only equilibrium, you can transfer weight from (blue, green) to (red, green) up to 10%.