I have to say when they went over this in game theory in a course in college I was like really, this was a Nobel on this? Well yeah behind the simple explanations is a lot of math so yep. But to me it seemed .. natural .. it would happen this way. Heck I remember a team building exercise built around this, the same model as this except the two sides can communicate. And the goal was to teach the people to work together to win win for everyone (as like in this one, they would agree to go up-right so they each get the best payout... the equilibrium can be shorted by communication and knowledge lol). Except in my case I figured this game would be one where later rounds it goes up, that sort of thing, and negatives get involved to reinforce. So I decided to play a different game, on top of the game, one where I win on my own personal goal (I get the most or lose the least if everyone loses .. I win!). And that meant agreeing to work togther on round 1 then backstabbing them to max my profit! Oh it was wonderful. The next round NO ONE on the various teams would trust the answers from anyone, they all tried to back stab each other, and the whole thing descended into chaos! The teacher took me aside at the end and said they had never seen that course devolve like that, and I answered that's because the course does not deal with the reality of human nature and by the way I won the game I was playing. LOL.
And you know that is the real answer. Smith and Nash are really both wrong. As they assume in the structures and rules that everyone is playing the same game with the same rules. But when someone plays a different game for other reasons, over the top of "their" game .. amazingly destructive results can follow. LOL
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
You explained it better and simpler than my professor did. Thanks!
Yes she did! Best, most logical, least convoluted explanation , yet.
W pfp
At least you have 1😭
modern academia: paying a school for the privilege of teaching yourself (what they failed to teach you), based on free content from the internet.
@@RM-dc6zdI'm not in merica pal, Uni is free were i am. Lol.
much better than uni professor. amazing.
Perfectly clear and concise explanation, thank you!
YOU SAVED TWO PEOPLE'S LIVES TODAY. MICRO FINAL TMW. THIS WAS SO HELPFUL I LOVE YOU.
So simply explained yet so effective. Love it!
I sincerely appreciate this video. Very understood this Nash stuff
Thank you Ashley! Because of your method I understand Nash Equilibrium ❤
I have been really struggling with this topic and this was SOOO helpful. Thank you for helping me understand!!
Well explained video! A lot better than the lecture videos we needed to watch for econ class.
Thank you so so much. You explained it much much better than my professor. You are awesome!!!!
This is fantastic, Ashley: I cannot believe how easy you have made it. Great teaching.
Well explained with many illustrations.
Thanks a lot Ashley
You're a saver! textbooks are too complex on explaining these things.
You make it simple to understand thanks ma
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW EASY YOU MADE IT OMG I WAS STRUGGLING BEFORE WATCHING THIS!
쉽게 설명해주셔서 이해하기 쉬웠어요! 감사합니다
No words to express, really very nice explanation...... thanks a lot..
Beautiful video from a beautiful lady. Thank you dear
thank u so much, u have saved my final assignment 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Beautiful explanation! Respect!
This was really well explained thank you very much!
Really well done video. Helped a lot in understanding this. Thanks!
You are the best teacher 😊
Vest explanation I've found. Thanks!
You are the best!
JazakAllah! ❤
great examples! i understand evrything that i did not from my university teacher
Thank you for making something so “different” much simpler. Yes! Use more characters from Harry Potter
Thank you for clearing out my confusion :)~
Excellent and superb explanation
This is going to take me a while, thanks
Great video. Thanks
That's a great illustration!!!
Thank you so so much God bless you ❤
Thank you for sharing your valuable knowledge
Great ecplanation. But the cards in the end is kind of obstructing the view. Can we have the cards a little bit later.
Thank you Ashley
Thank u for making this video 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Thank you so much
Thank you!
شکریہ 🥰🦋❤️
so insightful!
i appreciate you queen!
Thank you so much !!
very helpful! Thank you
great video, thank you!
This was great thank you! But I have a question: what if when u are going through each cell, both of P1’s values are the same? Like both zero?
Circle both if they are a best response.
How do you come up with the numbers?
This video explains that: th-cam.com/video/-VjjN6GCV8A/w-d-xo.html
@@AshleyHodgson thanks a lot, Ashley!
Thaaaank you so much ❤
THANK YOU
If nash equiplibrium is set. Could we lead out NP =P is solution .
To some extent, taught better than my professor. Thank you
I have to say when they went over this in game theory in a course in college I was like really, this was a Nobel on this? Well yeah behind the simple explanations is a lot of math so yep. But to me it seemed .. natural .. it would happen this way. Heck I remember a team building exercise built around this, the same model as this except the two sides can communicate. And the goal was to teach the people to work together to win win for everyone (as like in this one, they would agree to go up-right so they each get the best payout... the equilibrium can be shorted by communication and knowledge lol). Except in my case I figured this game would be one where later rounds it goes up, that sort of thing, and negatives get involved to reinforce. So I decided to play a different game, on top of the game, one where I win on my own personal goal (I get the most or lose the least if everyone loses .. I win!). And that meant agreeing to work togther on round 1 then backstabbing them to max my profit! Oh it was wonderful. The next round NO ONE on the various teams would trust the answers from anyone, they all tried to back stab each other, and the whole thing descended into chaos! The teacher took me aside at the end and said they had never seen that course devolve like that, and I answered that's because the course does not deal with the reality of human nature and by the way I won the game I was playing. LOL.
And you know that is the real answer. Smith and Nash are really both wrong. As they assume in the structures and rules that everyone is playing the same game with the same rules. But when someone plays a different game for other reasons, over the top of "their" game .. amazingly destructive results can follow. LOL
Please tell in comment how to find pure strategy equilibrium?
Helpful
Thanks from tasnim
RIP Dr. John Forbes Nash and Alicia Nash 🙏❤️
Jr.
interesting
Well
Huh!! As clear as mud.
w vid
You are so sweet and cute ❤
youre wrong. harry wouldn't have a dominant strategy as the 7 he would get from going up is more than the 6 from going down
Thank you!