Take the 2-minute tour ×
Economics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and academic economists and analysts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My professor defined a game as follows:

  • a set of $n$ players
  • a set of strategies $s_i$ for each player $i$
  • a set of payoffs $p_i$ for each player $i$
  • turn-taking: sequential or simultaneous
  • repetition: $k$ rounds, where $k\geq1$ and $k \in \Bbb{N}$

I have three problems with this definition:

  1. He didn't define turn-taking mathematically, so I feel like it's a vague definition. There should be like an index of possible turns with max value $n$. But I'm not sure how to write it formally.
  2. He doesn't define how we map from strategies selected to payoffs. Presumably, the set of payoffs should include a value for every possible combination of strategies selected. But there should be a way to state this formally as well.
  3. He doesn't define what a strategy is. I suppose one could simply say that a strategy is the object we map from in the domain to an element in the set of payoffs (ie codomain). In that sense, anything that can be valued is a strategy, ie a possible action.

My Question:

Can someone offer a more complete definition than the one given? Specifically make sure it improves upon the concerns I mentioned.

share|improve this question
1  
You can try one of many textbooks, there is one by Fudenberg and Tirole (not my personal choice), Myerson, and many others. You can find Osborne and Rubinstein online here: books.osborne.economics.utoronto.ca –  usul Feb 17 at 17:12
    
Great, that's even better. I didn't know where to look. Thanks. –  Stan Shunpike Feb 17 at 17:27
    
The definition of a game varies depending on the kind of game in question, e.g. extensive vs normal form, complete vs incomplete information, etc. Besides Osborne-Rubinstein, I'd also recommend Mas-Colell, Whinston, & Green (aka MWE). –  Herr K. Feb 18 at 20:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Your question is a little bit vague, but I'll do my best.

Your professor was motioning in the correct mathematical direction, but I think that what you're asking for is a more complete formalization.

Any game can be thought of as a tree (i.e. a non-cyclic graph). So to answer your first point about turn-taking, you might think about a function which maps nodes of the tree to some $i\in\{1,2,...n\}$ In the picture below, you might be able to define a formula to characterize the turn taking, but you can't necessarily do this in general. In this example $P_1$ and $P_2$ take alternating sequential turns. $P_1$ can choose $L$ or $R$, then $P_2$ can see which he chose, and then also choose $L$ or $R$.

Game Tree Example

Before going on to your second point, I need to take a moment to define information sets, which it doesn't sound like you've gotten to yet. Colloquially, an infoset is a set of vertices that represent uncertainty. The root of a game tree is always a singleton infoset, for example. Consider the game where you and I simultaneously choose heads or tails. When $P_2$ chooses whether or not to play heads or tails, she doesn't know if I have chosen to play heads or tails either. Thus while the game tree will have 3 internal vertices (1 that is the root for $P_1$, and 2 for $P_2$, reflecting $P_1$'s choice) there will only be 2 infosets because both vertices for $P_2$ will be contained in the same infoset. In games where turn-taking is sequential, all infosets should be singleton.

Now back to your question about strategies. Each player has a set of strategies. In the example tree provided above $S_1 = \{LLLLL,LLLLR,...,RRRRR\}$. This might seem a little bit confusing at first as it seems like each element of $S_1$ goes above and beyond defining a path. Each player's strategy is defined in terms of infosets. Therefore, the element $LLLLL$ should be read as, when $P_1$ finds herself at the top, she will choose $L$, and when she finds herself at the vertex that is farthest on the left and 1 down from the top, she will also choose $L$. It then also says that if $P_2$ were to choose $R$ instead, that $P_1$ would choose $L$. Thus a strategy is the set of all possible actions a player might take under all possible contingencies.

Finally, how do we state the mapping from strategies to payoffs? First we note that ever player has a strategy set $S_i$, and then form the cartesian product $S=S_1 \times S_2 \times ... \times S_n$, which characterizes all possible strategy combinations for all possible players. Then our payoff will be $\pi:S\to\mathbb{R}^n$. In our example $\pi(LLLLL,LLLLLLLLLL) = (4,2)$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.