Area 51 » Science

The Game Theory site didn't have enough activity during the beta and has been closed. You can download the data dump of all questions here.

230

followers

Announcements

The broader Economics proposal may meet the needs of Game Theorists as well. – Jon Ericson Feb 25 '14 at 0:46

Mathematics accepts some Game Theory questions. – Jon Ericson Feb 25 '14 at 0:47

60 Example Questions (1 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 5 down vote

added by Guilherme Kenji Chihaya Sep 16 '13 at 12:48

Actors in the same side (e.g. Males in a marriage market) interact because their utility depends on the matching outcomes of one another, as each successful match removes a matching prospect (e.g. Females in a marriage market). Can we formalise this interaction in game-theoretical terms? Here the decision is between continuing search and matching with the current available prospect, and actors pay attention to the fact that if their current matching prospect may be taken by other actors if they decide to extend their search period. – Guilherme Kenji Chihaya Sep 16 '13 at 12:54

@GuilhermeKenjiChihaya There's no need to answer questions on area51. In fact, the website's moderators seem to be against it. – Frank Sep 17 '13 at 14:36

Search for "<comments removed>" on this page, to see the rationale. – Frank Sep 17 '13 at 14:43

It is not an answer, it was just a comment with more information so that people may judge why this is a question that pertains to Game Theory. I thought that the question itself is too short to be judged as appropriate or not. In other Stack Exchange forums people usually can look at a much longer body of text before suggesting that a question is off-topic, but here it is only the question title and that is all. – Guilherme Kenji Chihaya Sep 17 '13 at 14:45

up vote 5 down vote

added by Martin Van der Linden Nov 11 '13 at 22:12

up vote 3 down vote

added by Arborvitae Mar 19 '13 at 15:38

closed as not constructive by boscho, Camil Staps, Robert Cartaino Apr 28 '13 at 16:53

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

	Seems considerably vague, akin to asking, "What is a real-life example of Physics in action?" at physics.stackexchange.com . – boscho Apr 24 '13 at 20:41
	This duplicate question got +4 votes, while the original one (What are the applications of game theory in real life?) got -1. That doesn't make any sense! LOL – Edward Ruchevits Nov 21 '13 at 16:09

up vote 3 down vote

added by Martin Van der Linden Nov 11 '13 at 21:52

up vote 1 down vote

added by Tony May 2 '13 at 3:03

	-1. Equilibria are not outcomes, and a title like that can only lead to confusion... – Frank Oct 14 '13 at 21:47
	I disagree: Equilibria are almost always a subset of outcomes. The only way this can't be the case is for games that have an infinite number of discrete steps or a continuous play mechanism baked into them. And even "eternal" games like that will often lead to convergences (i.e. equilibria) that make the remaining states of the game predictable in the same fashion as an "outcome." – Tony Oct 25 '13 at 13:02
	Eh, well, I've always seen equilibrium formally defined as a mapping from the state space to a vector of mixed strategies for the players (satisfying some conditions). Corresponding to an equilibrium is a distribution over outcomes. Even if that distribution is degenerate, so there is only one outcome consistent with the equilibrium, it is confusing to talk about an equilibrium being an outcome. I think perhaps we are speaking with different lingo... – Frank Oct 28 '13 at 4:01
	That's totally fair. I still claim the question is valid, but in the interest of getting it answered, at this point I would modify the question to something like "Is there an internally consistent quantification of the probability that a Nash Equilibrium correctly predicts empirical outcomes?" – Tony Nov 4 '13 at 14:47
	Even if this question were considered poorly formulated, wouldn't poorly formulated but on-topic questions appropriate in a live forum? One function of a forum is to help novices learn concepts that will allow them to formulate questions better. – Mars Dec 8 '13 at 8:00

up vote 0 down vote

added by Glen The Udderboat Mar 6 '13 at 23:07

up vote 0 down vote

added by Aaron Roth Jun 30 '13 at 21:25

up vote 0 down vote

added by Mars Aug 8 '13 at 16:21

up vote 0 down vote

added by Kevin C Aug 9 '13 at 12:42

By the "usual game theory analysis" I mean, for example, solving for (mixed strategy) Nash equilibrium. – Kevin C Aug 9 '13 at 12:43

Despite the example, the meaning of "usual" and "valid" is unclear. The question would receive better answer if it was about the example itself. One could for instance ask : " Is it possible to generalize the concept of Mixed Strategy Nash-equilibrium to cases in which agents do not have expected utility? " – Martin Van der Linden Nov 11 '13 at 21:59

up vote 0 down vote

added by chell Oct 9 '13 at 7:24

up vote 0 down vote

added by Justin Blank Nov 3 '13 at 21:14

up vote 0 down vote

added by mrhobbeys Nov 5 '13 at 5:07

up vote 0 down vote

added by Martin Van der Linden Nov 11 '13 at 21:46

up vote 0 down vote

added by Martin Van der Linden Nov 11 '13 at 21:59

up vote 0 down vote

added by Shagun Dec 12 '13 at 6:25

up vote -1 down vote

added by Edward Ruchevits Dec 2 '12 at 14:12

I'm not personally against polling questions, but StackExchange tends to support the philosophy that Real Questions Have Answers and this question doesn't. If asked carefully and answered thoughfully, I think this might be a popular question, but not a representative question. Try asking a specific question, like "Do the results from the Swedish Lowest Unique Positive Integer (LUPI) game match theoretical predictions? – Merbs Dec 2 '12 at 15:12

MathOverflow gets this sort of question on occasion: while not representative, I think it certainly fits here. Answers should list fields where Game Theory finds applications, along with a brief explanation and further reference. – josh Feb 21 '13 at 15:08

@josh: I'm afraid the list might just be too long, as the OP asks for applications in "real life". – Kevin C Apr 14 '13 at 9:52

True Believers have a ready answer: Everything. (I'm not a T.B. myself.) – Mars Jul 29 '13 at 4:11

A duplicate of this question was already closed: What is a real-life example of Game theory in action? – Frank Sep 13 '13 at 19:28

up vote -1 down vote

added by NauticalMile Oct 10 '13 at 3:52

	Let me give an example: 5 marines and 3 marauders (player 1) engage 8 zerglings and 3 mutalisks (player 2). Both players have a very large number of options: e.g. which units should target which enemy units, should some or all units retreat, how do each player's optimal decisions change based on their opponent's decisions? – NauticalMile Oct 10 '13 at 3:59
	I would be looking for an answer that includes an outline for a general model that could be used to find objectively the best outcome. – NauticalMile Oct 10 '13 at 4:04
	Also the 'best' outcome is the highest achievable ratio: (monetary value of players units)/(monetary value of enemy units) at the end of the battle. – NauticalMile Oct 10 '13 at 4:08
	@downvoter What are the issues with this question? Is it too applied? Could it be improved? – NauticalMile Oct 15 '13 at 13:45

up vote -1 down vote

added by Spießbürger Oct 16 '13 at 13:12

up vote -2 down vote

added by bhau May 30 '13 at 17:07

If this question were allowed, a plethora of similar ones could as well. (Can babies be modeled? Can chickens be modeled?) It's worthwhile to ask what criteria we expect our players to satisfy (optimizing and having some amount of computational power or depth to thinking about I-know-that-he-knows-that-I-know-that... and maybe some other criteria, too), but this question is too specific. – Frank May 30 '13 at 22:27

OK, but this seems close to questions that some people might want to allow. Suppose that the questioner gave detail about alternative models or alternative motivations for specific models that they are considering for game theoretic treatment of terrorists and states. Maybe such a question would have a more specific title, so @Frank's comment would still apply to this one. I just worry about uncautiously shutting out questions that belong in the site. Any site is likely to have boundaries that shouldn't be defined precisely because the details of the question matter. – Mars Jun 7 '13 at 1:36

up vote -4 down vote

added by steadyfish Apr 5 '13 at 19:54

I think that more precise versions of this question might be appropriate. – Mars Jun 4 '13 at 21:21

List type questions are not appropriate. – lnafziger Jul 1 '13 at 18:52

Such questions are not appropriate but are useful nevertheless in some other format. eg we can have these questions like this stackoverflow.com/questions/388242/… – Shagun Dec 12 '13 at 6:45