You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on A simple game that has no solution - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: James_Miller 20 July 2014 06:36PM

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

Comments (123)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 July 2014 08:48:53PM 4 points [-]

Assume that each player's hand may tremble with a small non-zero probability p, then take the limit as p approaches zero from above.

Comment author: Emile 20 July 2014 09:35:50PM *  11 points [-]

... Let's do that!

Simple model: A plays A, B and C with probabilities a, b, and c, with the constraint that each must be above the trembling probability t (=p/3 using the p above). (Two doesn't tremble for simplicity's sake)

Two picks X with probability x and Y with probability (1-x).

So their expected utilities are:

One: 3a + 2b+6c(1-x)

Two: 2b(1-x) + cx = 2*b + (c - 2b) x

It seems pretty clear that One wants b to be as low as possible (either a or c will always be better), so we can set b=t.

So One's utility is (constant) - 3c+6c -6cx

So One wants c to maximize (1-2x)c, and Two wants x to maximize (c-2t)c

The Nash equilibrium is at 1-2x=0 and c-2t=0, so c=2t and x=0.5

So in other words, if One's hand can tremble than he should also sometimes deliberately pick C to make it twice as likely as B, and Two should flip a coin.

(and as t converges towards 0, we do indeed get One always picking A)

Comment author: James_Miller 20 July 2014 09:57:25PM 1 point [-]

Excellent! This does indeed work given the assumption that Player 1 can not set the probability of himself picking B at zero. But if Player 1 can set the probability of him picking B at zero, the game still has no solution.

Comment author: James_Miller 20 July 2014 08:54:35PM 0 points [-]

Good thinking, but I picked the payoffs so this approach wouldn't give an easy solution. Consider an equilibrium where Player 1 intends to pick A, but there is a small but equal chance he will pick B or C by mistake. In this equilibrium Player 2 would pick Y if he got to move, but then Player 1 would always intend to Pick C, effectively pretending he had made a mistake.