Game Theory Part 2: The Meeting Game

This video goes through a second game theory example. Unlike the prisoners' dilemma, this example shows a case where there are no dominant strategies and where there are multiple Nash equilibria.

For more information and a complete set of microeconomics videos, see
http://www.economistsdoitwithmodels.com/microeconomics-101

by Economists Do It With Models

Category:

Education

Tags:

• economics
• microeconomics
• game
• theory

[LOOKNG778]

Where can I get some of those stickers, "Economist do it with models..."?

[jodiecongirl]

@LOOKNG778 If you go to the web site in the description of the video or on the graphic at the beginning and end of the video, you will see a link in the left-hand column that says "Vinyl Bumper Stickers." :)

[tih1776]

Why would they want to go to the same place? Wherever the wife goes, my guess is that the husband wants to go to another place in order to avoid the wife... :-)

[Fadeddreams5]

Hey Jodi, are you planning on continuing these online lectures, or have you discontinued them? My Econ teachers have all sucked, but I'm really into the subject, and these videos have helped refresh my forgetful mind. Hope to see more of your work!

[gozzzzz]

you don't need to enter every details in every steps. we are not retards

[Psycatalyst]

This scenario is ridiculous!

[TheDreamerBJ]

@441meatloaf yeah i think i agree, i feel like i don't have the basic knowledge, but what you told makes sense somehow. thanks for the explanation :)

[441meatloaf]

@TheDreamerBJ

Its not easy trying to understand game theory through these videos because most of them don't teach the basics and reasoning logic behind these decisions. You have to take an intermediate level economics course to get the full scope of game theory that gets increasingly complicated when you're dealing with infinite games, repeated games, grim trigger, and sequential games.

[441meatloaf]

@TheDreamerBJ

But the person who explained this game is also wrong. Instead of just 2 nash there is a 3rd nash. Whenever you have more than 1 nash, then you have mix strategies since the payoffs are just probability distributions of some outcome.

Meaning that there are some probabilities that the husband and wife could pick movie or dinner. If say p=0.5 for dinner and movie, it means the third nash will be: half of the time the husband or wife picks dinner or movie.

[441meatloaf]

@TheDreamerBJ

you are missing some point.

Consider the husband going to dinner. Wife would choose dinner since movie would result in 0. If husband goes to movie, she will also go movie otherwise it would be 0. Same logic with the wife.

Therefore there is two nash, (dinner,dinner), (movie, movie).

[TheDreamerBJ]

why isn't the 20-20 nash equilibrium? it's the best choice both for individual and the group. and they have nothing to lose like in prisoner's dilemma, both would be better off going to dinner. or am i missing some point :)

[yoyuepz]

@Fadeddreams5 I think khan academy is better