4
$\begingroup$

Reading the paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002205319190155W I came up with the following question.

Given that this paper deals with games in which players move simultaneously, the formula in (1) of Definition 3.1 makes perfectly sense. If someone considers sequential movements of the players, how Definition 3.1 (and hence formula in (1)) would change?

Any good reference about "sequential moving" games?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The paper seems to be paywalled $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Oct 10, 2016 at 19:15

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

As Fudenberg and Tirole note, the fact that they assume players move simultaneously does not matter:

This specification is more general than it may appear, because the set of feasible actions can be time and history dependent, so that games with alternating moves are included.

Moreover, all actions are observable by all players, so the definition would be unchanged by the assumption that moves are alternating.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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