More than 6 hours of lessons + a book with 100 pages + various videos + sample questions = I did not understand anything. I watched your two videos and boom!!!The whole mystery was solved. Thank you. You are a star!
If she could explain plain and clear like this, why do lecturers find it difficult to do the same? Is there a secret those lecturers are keeping from us or don't they just want students to understand these things? Ashley, you're saving many that you don't know. Don't be surprised if we start acknowledging you in our papers. Thanks a million!
why would the person dating prefer to defect and get a higher payoff by acting like they're just friends? This example makes less sense to me than the others
Having dominant strategies for each is always problematic as they miss choosing the high utility strategy by reaching Nash equilibrium, I don’t think it’s wise.
The issue is when you have multiple interactions. The best strategy then is cooperate first trial. Next trial do whatever your partner did last time, i.e., cooperate only if they cooperated last time, etc.
Another great explanation, thank you sooo much 🙂🙂. Is the "dominated strategy" (8;8) the same thing being called Pareto balance? Plus another question connencted to this: would this (8;8) be the so to say "cooperative" strategy? And a 3.question 🤦🏻♀️😀: is the (12;0) and (0;12) the ones called dominant strategies?
So Im not an expert on this and am also quite late. Furthermore, I dont know what a Pareto balance is, but what got from this video is that each of those squares isnt the strategy but the result. Meaning 8,8 is the result if both chose their cooperative strategy. 12,0 and 0,12 are the results if only one party chose the cooperative strategy while the other chose their dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is the action that always produces an at least okay result no matter what the other partys choose. The dominated strategy produces the best result if all partys choose their dominated strategy as well, however choosing the dominated strategy while the other chooses their dominant strategy is bad for you. Also, choosing the dominant strategy when the other party chooses the dominated strategy gives you better results. Thats why 8,8 is so unstable
Hello, great video like always, but I had a few questions. If the game is repeated, can the players achieve a better outcome? like does it change the game? also, is there also a real life example for that? because it seems that there was a situation where firms colluded on prices (is it just because, they could still talk and respect some external rule?) thank you in advance
I'll give you an anecdote using Ashley's example, Dating or Friends! I had seen her around a few times. Our social spheres intersected with euchre or trivia. I nervously asked her to lunch and she said yes. We sat down to order with an invisible cloud of awkwardness... Conversation began to clear the air but I still didn't know how best to approach it. At this point, I'm running 0 she's has 12. The she said it - "I'm seeing someone else". The game just started anew. I now know her approach so I can mitigate the "damage" and agree the Nash Equilibrium - 4 to 4. Better outcome. :)
I have a different intuition about the payoffs in the dating example. If both players consider dating (each other) better than both being single, why would the highest payoff be a state in which they are both single? It seems like schadenfreude was worth at least 4 points more than dating for each player.
Since all games do not have a dominant strategy for each player. What would be an optimal strategy for each player in the absence of dominant strategy?
Check out Nash equilibrium videos. Of course, I try to avoid the language of "optimal" strategy, except when there is a dominant strategy, because in the real world Nash equilibrium assumes a certain type of thinking on the part of your opponent, and there are other styles of thinking about these problems (minimax, for example).
@@AshleyHodgson @Ashley Hodgson I watched your recommended videos. You mean to say that Nash equilibrium will exist in the absence of a dominant strategy given the fact that each player must be aware of opponent's 'best' strategy. Whereas there might be a possibility of Nash equilibrium when players are having dominant strategy. Am I correct?
Is it a necessary condition for the player to be in the same type of role for them to play the prisoner's dilemma? The examples so far are two thief, a couple dating, two companies in the same type of business...I guess my question is: can the players be, for example, a buyer and a seller, a police officer and a criminal, a father who does not want his daughter to date x guy and the x guy...?
@@AshleyHodgson Thank you for that answer. I guess I just don't know how to set it up. The classic example, the two thief have the same options:to confess or to stay silent, the dating couple in your video have also the same options:to make the move or act if it is just friendship. So, if the players are playing different roles in the game, then there should different options. So if they have different options, I just don't know how to set up the payoffs so that it shows that they are in the prisoner's dilemma.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
More than 6 hours of lessons + a book with 100 pages + various videos + sample questions = I did not understand anything. I watched your two videos and boom!!!The whole mystery was solved. Thank you. You are a star!
If she could explain plain and clear like this, why do lecturers find it difficult to do the same? Is there a secret those lecturers are keeping from us or don't they just want students to understand these things? Ashley, you're saving many that you don't know. Don't be surprised if we start acknowledging you in our papers. Thanks a million!
yes i know exactly what u mean those are all sore losers
If lectures so clear nobody would pay 100ks in undergrad degrees
It's really great explanation. Thank you soo much ! You are the best game theory teacher I have ever seen 😎❤️
THE BEST VIDEO FOR EXPLAINATION OF PD
why would the person dating prefer to defect and get a higher payoff by acting like they're just friends? This example makes less sense to me than the others
As always, incredibly well explained👏👏 Thanks!!
These are so helpful!! Thank you!!!!!
Good explanation examples. I didn't get the two prisoners' example either. thank you
Thank you for these videos, you explain the concepts so well!
So comprehensively explained! Love those fun examples. I really wish u r my econ teacher~
Having dominant strategies for each is always problematic as they miss choosing the high utility strategy by reaching Nash equilibrium, I don’t think it’s wise.
Hi Ashley,
When people talk about modelling in economics do they refer to econometrics?
Modelling can refer to either theoretical economics (microeconomic theory like I do) or empirical models (econometrics).
does it always have to be a 2x2? what if there are more than 2 options per player. thanks for the video, keep up to good work.
Is 8,8 also a nash equilibrium
That really helped me understand this matter! Thanks :)
Amazing video!
The issue is when you have multiple interactions. The best strategy then is cooperate first trial. Next trial do whatever your partner did last time, i.e., cooperate only if they cooperated last time, etc.
Another great explanation, thank you sooo much 🙂🙂. Is the "dominated strategy" (8;8) the same thing being called Pareto balance? Plus another question connencted to this: would this (8;8) be the so to say "cooperative" strategy? And a 3.question 🤦🏻♀️😀: is the (12;0) and (0;12) the ones called dominant strategies?
So Im not an expert on this and am also quite late. Furthermore, I dont know what a Pareto balance is, but what got from this video is that each of those squares isnt the strategy but the result. Meaning 8,8 is the result if both chose their cooperative strategy. 12,0 and 0,12 are the results if only one party chose the cooperative strategy while the other chose their dominant strategy. The dominant strategy is the action that always produces an at least okay result no matter what the other partys choose. The dominated strategy produces the best result if all partys choose their dominated strategy as well, however choosing the dominated strategy while the other chooses their dominant strategy is bad for you. Also, choosing the dominant strategy when the other party chooses the dominated strategy gives you better results. Thats why 8,8 is so unstable
Beautifully explained
Hello, great video like always, but I had a few questions. If the game is repeated, can the players achieve a better outcome? like does it change the game? also, is there also a real life example for that? because it seems that there was a situation where firms colluded on prices (is it just because, they could still talk and respect some external rule?) thank you in advance
Yes, you can definitely achieve a better outcome when games are repeated! I should do a video on that one of these days. Good suggestion!
I'll give you an anecdote using Ashley's example, Dating or Friends! I had seen her around a few times. Our social spheres intersected with euchre or trivia. I nervously asked her to lunch and she said yes. We sat down to order with an invisible cloud of awkwardness... Conversation began to clear the air but I still didn't know how best to approach it. At this point, I'm running 0 she's has 12. The she said it - "I'm seeing someone else". The game just started anew. I now know her approach so I can mitigate the "damage" and agree the Nash Equilibrium - 4 to 4. Better outcome. :)
If you can make more videos about Health economics that would be great
We love you keep up the good work
I have a different intuition about the payoffs in the dating example. If both players consider dating (each other) better than both being single, why would the highest payoff be a state in which they are both single? It seems like schadenfreude was worth at least 4 points more than dating for each player.
dude its just an example the context doesn't matter as much as how the matrix works
Since all games do not have a dominant strategy for each player. What would be an optimal strategy for each player in the absence of dominant strategy?
Check out Nash equilibrium videos. Of course, I try to avoid the language of "optimal" strategy, except when there is a dominant strategy, because in the real world Nash equilibrium assumes a certain type of thinking on the part of your opponent, and there are other styles of thinking about these problems (minimax, for example).
@@AshleyHodgson @Ashley Hodgson I watched your recommended videos. You mean to say that Nash equilibrium will exist in the absence of a dominant strategy given the fact that each player must be aware of opponent's 'best' strategy. Whereas there might be a possibility of Nash equilibrium when players are having dominant strategy. Am I correct?
Thank you so much ❣️
it really is every where in our lives..
Thank youuuuu
Is it a necessary condition for the player to be in the same type of role for them to play the prisoner's dilemma? The examples so far are two thief, a couple dating, two companies in the same type of business...I guess my question is: can the players be, for example, a buyer and a seller, a police officer and a criminal, a father who does not want his daughter to date x guy and the x guy...?
They do not need to be in the same type of role to be in a prisoner's dilemma.
@@AshleyHodgson Thank you for that answer. I guess I just don't know how to set it up. The classic example, the two thief have the same options:to confess or to stay silent, the dating couple in your video have also the same options:to make the move or act if it is just friendship. So, if the players are playing different roles in the game, then there should different options. So if they have different options, I just don't know how to set up the payoffs so that it shows that they are in the prisoner's dilemma.
@@AshleyHodgson More specifically, does the matrix have to be symmetric for it to be considered a prisoners dilemma?
Prettiest teacher with the Prettiest explanation
Ashley ..look at me ..
This is cool.asf
I am still not clear about prisoner,s dilemma
Najak Le Ya
@Ashley Hodgson you look nice.
so it sounds like you're saying that the west shouldn't reduce emissions because china and india aren't reducing theirs.......