At 4:25 why is it not AC x Quantity? You said MC but can't understand why it would be this? Edit: is it because MC are constant in stackelberg model? So MC = AC?
Hmm, it looks good to me. One reason for the discrepancy might be following where the parentheses are paired with, and certainly the formatting of the notation is not making that easy.
Love your work! My wargaming strategy skills skyrocketed from studiying your vids
This helped me so much in my uni work, thank you!
thanks for saving my semester senpai
No jokes, you're saving my ass. Thank you.
At 4:25 why is it not AC x Quantity? You said MC but can't understand why it would be this?
Edit: is it because MC are constant in stackelberg model? So MC = AC?
I think the simplification at 7:17 from 2nd point to 3rd point is not correct
Hmm, it looks good to me. One reason for the discrepancy might be following where the parentheses are paired with, and certainly the formatting of the notation is not making that easy.
I thought the same but, after calculated myself, he is right.
I agree that it is incorrect, I think there is not supposed to be the c1q1 at the end, can someone explain?
Never mind, Mr Spaniel is right
very helpful video! thank you very much
Stackelberg? More like “stuff I’ve never heard” before, but it’s fascinating. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us!
Plz tell me the limitation of stackelberg model
that was so nice!
Will you also cover Bertrand competition?
Yep, that will be after the Stackelberg stuff is done.
banging
You lost me several sessions ago. I think I need more visual incentive to keep focus.