I really expected some sort of answer or at least a discussion for the ice cream example. No matter what outcome they plan, one player can convince the other with a better plan for both of them (compared to the current one). But that plan too is susceptible to the same strategy. The game will turn into infinite proposals. Players need to be tolerant to plans in the sense that they accept the plan even if they could have made more money otherwise - and in the same way, they still need to have some amount of greed because if one player is too tolerant of any plan, the other two will make him settle with a ridiculously low amount of ice cream (1g for example). The first thing that comes to my mind is some sort of probability approach. For each player, there is a distinct probability of suggesting a certain plan (a plan being the suggestion of both the coalition and the distribution of the ice cream). The higher the ice cream that certain player has in that plan - the higher the probability of him suggesting it. They will each suggest a plan randomly as described, and only apply that plan if all three players suggest the same plan. I feel like this (most likely) eventually results in a fair distribution. The low and high probabilities of each player manages to simulate their tolerance and greed respectively.
![(AGT4E3) [Game Theory] Coalitional Games](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5GUFg0npmgU/mqdefault.jpg)
![(AGT4E3) [Game Theory] Coalitional Games](/img/tr.png)
![(AGT4E10) [Game Theory] Shapley Value](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HWRHKs3O_Us/mqdefault.jpg)
I really expected some sort of answer or at least a discussion for the ice cream example. No matter what outcome they plan, one player can convince the other with a better plan for both of them (compared to the current one). But that plan too is susceptible to the same strategy. The game will turn into infinite proposals. Players need to be tolerant to plans in the sense that they accept the plan even if they could have made more money otherwise - and in the same way, they still need to have some amount of greed because if one player is too tolerant of any plan, the other two will make him settle with a ridiculously low amount of ice cream (1g for example).
The first thing that comes to my mind is some sort of probability approach. For each player, there is a distinct probability of suggesting a certain plan (a plan being the suggestion of both the coalition and the distribution of the ice cream). The higher the ice cream that certain player has in that plan - the higher the probability of him suggesting it. They will each suggest a plan randomly as described, and only apply that plan if all three players suggest the same plan. I feel like this (most likely) eventually results in a fair distribution. The low and high probabilities of each player manages to simulate their tolerance and greed respectively.
is the player with the most number of binding contracts the most likely to profit in a cooperative game?
Thank you for the video
nice video! thank you it is helping me study !
Nice explain
Hi! Can you play in cooperative game dominant and dominated strategies as well? Is there any difference in that sence? Just trying to get the rules
Strategy is a concept used in non-cooperative game theory only. Cooperative game theory ignores strategies and focuses solely on final outcomes.
Thank you and 1 more question, sorry: is the battle of sexes game a cooperative one?
@@beataszendrey786 as there are strategies for that game, it’a a non-cooperative game.
i finally figured out the difference between these two types of games w/ this video. After a month of studying game theory.
It's hard to understand with this weird way of narrating to be honest.