Game Theory 101: Forward Induction and Burning Money

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
9,050
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 23, 2009

William Spaniel explains how willingness to light one's money on fire can help players improve their payoffs. In the process, he introduces a new solution concept known as forward induction.

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (JimBobJenkins)

  • Hey, have you already made a video about signal games??? Thanks for posting all this stuff on the internet.

  • @gianpinna No, I've done virtually nothing with incomplete information.

  • @gianpinna That's not going to be fun at all. What's the setup?

  • That was really bad english, i'm sorry. I write again:

    I have to think about a real life example of a signal game and after solve the game. So i'm virtually free to put the payoffs i prefer. I got the structure of the signal games. I just can't understand how to solve them...

  • @gianpinna Check your inbox.

  • What is the real meaning of burning money, could you exemplify? 

  • @edinhenrik I study international relations, so the classic example here is states doing worthless military exercises. They cost a ton but don't really do much for the actual quality of your military.

see all

All Comments (14)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • can this somewhat be used to explain the seemingly irrational position of preferring option A over B, B over C and C over A, in that in each three cases the elimination of the other option changes the equilibrium

  • @JimBobJenkins

    I have to think about a real life example of a signal game and after solve the game. Some i'm virtually free to make the payoffs i prefer. But i got the structure of the signal games. I just can't understand how to solve them...

  • @JimBobJenkins

    F**k! I have an assignment for tomorrow and i can't really find out how to find the bayesian nash equilibrium in those games. Too complicated!

    

  • Burning money is destroying other people's resources and hence damaging their own potential maximums, to force outcomes that would not otherwise be foregone.

    It is a strategy of control freak plundering bigots.

  • Did I get this right:

    The ability of P1 to burn money changed the (sub)game from having two weakly dominant pure strategy equilibriums and one mixed strategy equilibrium to having just one pure strategy equilibrium which is a perfect nash equilibrium and that is going to the fight, i.e. fight strictly dominates?

    So the idea is, the player with more money to burn will always get his/her way even if he/she doesn't ever burn any money simply by having the ability to burn it?

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more