Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 6 November 2007

	Game theory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 13, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Game theory Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Misplaced Pages's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. v t e Poker Index of poker articles Overview Betting Cheating Glossary History Poker boom List of poker playing card nicknames Tournaments Play Elements Chip Position Pot Playing card Hands Non-standard Tell Plays Aggression Bluff Check-raise Draw Isolation Protection Steal Variations Brag Draw poker Five-card draw Stud poker Five-card stud Seven-card stud Razz Community card poker Texas hold 'em Greek hold 'em Omaha hold 'em Six-plus hold 'em Casino games Caribbean stud Let It Ride Mississippi Stud Three Card Poker Four Card Poker Chinese poker Open-face Chinese poker Strategy Fundamental theorem of poker Morton's theorem Pot odds Slow play Computing Computer poker player Online poker Poker tools Category Commons Outline

Template:WP1.0

Archives

/Archive1

Hawk-dove = chicken?

"Finally, biologists have used the hawk-dove game (also known as chicken) to analyze fighting behavior and territoriality." Is it correct that "chicken" is used as a term for "hawk-dove"-games? I always thought, there is a difference! Rieger 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicken and Hawk-Dove are both symmetrical discoordination games (as long as the standard V<C assumption is made for the Hawk-Dove game). The payoff matrices are essentially the same. In the matrix below, A is either Hawk or Don't Swerve, and B is Dove or Swerve, then they payoffs have the ranking Tempation>Coordination>Neutral>Punishment and the games will have the same reaction correspondences (see Best response#Discoordination games) or appendices in J theor Biol (2006) 241:639-648 :) )

Pete.Hurd 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An error in "imperfect information games"?

It says: "Most games studied in game theory are perfect information games, although there are some interesting examples of imperfect information games, including the ultimatum game and centipede game."

But when looking at these examples (the ultimatum game and the centipede game) closer they both seem to be perfect information games. For example, in the ultimatum game, when making the decision, the second player knows the move of the first player, and thus this game is a perfect information game. The same holds for the centipede game.

The example picture of an imperfect information game is correct, though.

Thank you for point that out. It was originally correct, but was apparently changed at some point. I have changed it back. --best, kevin 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who copied whom?

Ok, so I was searching around for information on game theory. I found this, and it sounded very familiar. I don't know if everyone already knows about this, and I'm just behind the loop, or what, but I'll just leave this here and you guys can take action if you need to.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/game_theory.html

Similar doesn't even begin to describe it. Vancar 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So I checked out some other things at Brainyencyclopedia.com. I don't know why, but all of their articles are just like Misplaced Pages's. I'm guessing that it's supposed to be this way, now that I've seen several articles, but I don't know why it would be the same... Anyone want to fill me in? Vancar 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From that link "The Misplaced Pages article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL". It is a wikipedia mirror. Martin 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Quantum game theory

Unless I'm looking the wrong place, the quantum game theory page is a bit bare (to say the least) but in any case, does anyone agree that it would be interesting if added here? QGT is one of the more interesting and accessible topics in quantum theory.- 26/10/06 Paul

List of games in game theory on WP:FLC

List of games in game theory is a current Featured List candidate. Both the article and current nomination would benefit from additional feedback by Math and Game-theory enthusiasts. If any of you have the time, please have a look at the list and leave your comments at the nomination page. Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Green 2002

I removed this edit. I looked at Green's paper and it said the opposite of what the edit said, namely, the findings suggest that game theorists are better than novices, but not as good as role playing. Since this article is about game theory generally, and not role playing, I think its inappropriate for this article. --best, kevin 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Green 2005

The previous contributor clearly didn't look at the commentaries on Green 2002 or at Green 2005 which extends the work. So that others don't make the same mistake, I've rewritten the paragraph with more detail. I hope this clarifies the relevance of the findings to game theory.

Kesten Green

Thank you for your interest in the game theory. As I mentioned above, I read the article cited in the addition (Green 2002), which says that game theorists were better than novices (contra the addition which said that game theorists were not better than novices). I have a few concerns with the most recent edit. Since this is a general article on game theory, I think its inappropriate that this one article (or two articles) are displayed so prominently. By comparison, almost as many words are written about Green 2005 as game theory in biology. Obviously, this makes the green study appear more influential than it has been. Second, there is no citation for the claim that people have tried to refute the conclusions but failed. Who has? Where are these results published? Although you may personally be aware of them, I'm afraid that wikipedia requires that such claims be verifiable by others. Finally, I cannot really judge the importance of this paper. I have no doubt that its an interesting study, but given its recency and lack of citations I'm not sure that it should be included. Can you provide any external evidence that this paper has had wide influence in the game theory community? --best, kevin 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no discussion has been forthcoming, I have removed the paragraph. Please do not restore it without attempting to reach a consensus here. --best, kevin 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess?

Chess is listed as a zero sum game, but strictly speaking it is not. In case of a draw, each player receives 1/2 a point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

The points always add to one, so it's a "fixed sum game", or Constant sum game, which is synonymous with zero sum for all practical, non-trivial nit picking, purposes. Pete.Hurd 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative vs. NonCooperative games

This article still needs at leads a distinction between cooperative games and noncooperatives ones. Am I missing an article on cooperative games? I know there's ones on the Core and Shapley value but nothing general.radek 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for cooperative game? --best, kevin 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!radek 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this. I would like to join Radek in saying that cooperative game theory is pretty much ignored on this page, for instance standard coalitional game forms are missing, but I feel adding them would require some reorganisation.Koczy 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

spelling

OK, so I reverted a US "modeling" back to "modelling" because that seemed to be the rule in this article, but other words seem to be in US english... I really don't care that much, but is there a precedent for one or the other in this article? I suppose I'll go dredge through the history and see... Pete.Hurd 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The oldest version I have access to (as edited by Zundark at 17:02, 31 October 2001 ) has only one word that I can find to judge spelling convention by, and that's "analyse". So, I think the WP rule is to standardise the article on UK spelling. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest rule I have been able to find in wikipedia about spelling variants in English: a) if the article is about a subject on, e.g., the U.K., use UK spelling; b) if not, try to use whatever has been used in the article so far; c) if there is any doubt, leave the spelling alone (between English variants) - don't "fix" acceptable forms. The only clear exception to the last point is where the same word is spelled differently in the same article. There are lots of reasons the "precedent" in the article may not be clear - there are lots of inconsistencies between UK, NZ, AUS, SAfr, Cdn and US variants, and very few people know them all. Cdn spelling has, for example, no hard and fast rule on 'ise/ize' endings, but is very clear on how things are coloured - with a 'u'.--Gregalton 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says that articles should use the same spelling throughout. I make an implicit WP:IAR exception for cases where a particular section of an article is specific to one culture -- for example "U.S. check" in the cheque article, the appropriate change in the "American usage" section of The Honourable -- but for a case like game theory I think we should stick to one dialect per article. --Trovatore 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was, absent any obvious link between the subject matter and spelling variety (as is the case here) to go with the earliest usage in the article. That's what I've attempted to do with the most recent change. Pete.Hurd 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding too. --Trovatore 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When I rewrote the article I probably used US English (since, when I can spell, I spell in US). I think Pete's right about the policy, but to be honest I didn't cheque before writing. I probably should have, but being from the US I have a hard time imagining that there are people in the world who don't live in the US. :) If someone who knows non-US spellings want to make the article consistently anything, I certainly won't object. --best, kevin 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I've had a day of seeing multiple spelling "fixes" that were not fixes, and ahem, over-reacted. I am aware of the policy above, but I think 90% of the spelling fixes like this are from people not aware there is a policy at all, or perhaps what spelling variants exist. Hence, "leave it alone unless certain" would be more clear advice. At any rate, I'll cheque my rant at the door next time.--Gregalton 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you guys are joking, you should know that "cheque" is never used to replace the word "check" except for when it pertains to a note given to banks. Otherwise check in American English and British English are the same. 128.227.51.100 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick everyone! look serious! Ummm... errrr... cover sheets on the TPS reports?! really? Pete.Hurd 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed a section labeled "criticism of game theory" and returned the material to its original place. Labeling it "criticism of game theory" seems inappropriate, as the criticisms do not apply to the use of game theory in biology (biologist do not presume that animals are rationally self-interested in the sense criticized). Rather this is a criticism of game theory as used primarily in economics. As a result, I think its more appropriate there. The bit added about John Nash is merely an bad ad hominem. I say bad, because those assumptions were used in game theory long before Nash. So even if Nash's mental state was relevant, it doesn't explain the assumption. Besides, on matters like this, the BBC is not a reputable source. --best, kevin 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a "criticism of game theory" section would be like having a "criticism of differential calculus" section. However it is possible to criticize the various ways that game theory has been applied or used. Perhaps there should be an article or section on Applied Game Theory or Uses of Game Theory?radek 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have some criticism of game theory in the "uses of game theory/economics" section. More could certainly be added there. But adding much criticism to this section as it is would mean that there might be an unbalanced amount of criticism of game theory in economics. In any case, Nash's mental state doesn't really belong in this article.

I have a related comment/question. I think that section could use a little bit more material, both positive and critical discussion. Does anybody agree that the "in economics" section could use some lengthening, or do people think that most lengthening should be done in subarticles, to which this article may link?

The later would entail consigning, for instance, Franklin Fisher's general criticisms of game theory in the article I linked to at folk theorem and to oligopoly (which is the particular application of game theory that Fisher is most interested in). The former would mean bringing his and others' general points to this article, which could be done only if they were adequately balanced with answers (in this case, Carl Shapiro argues that Fisher's point is a straw man)

In case you are wondering, the articles I'm thinking of are: Fisher, Franklin M. Games Economists Play: A Noncooperative View, and Shapiro, Carl. The Theory of Business Strategy, both in The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Spring, 1989). Smmurphy 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm - I think this is a nice idea, but probably better for daughter articles. I had hoped that we could write articles like game theory in philosophy, game theory in biology, game theory in economics and business, etc. I have intended for sometime to write the first, but you know how it goes.... --best, kevin 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hello, thank you for the response. I wasn't sure how the section would play out. I know this page has had alot of work done on it. That being said, the idea that game theory is uncriticisable is very wrong. Settling this debate only means finding more sources, which i will do. Kzollman's idea that "the BBC is not a reputable source" is contrary to wikipedia's guidelines. Adding a new section does not reduce the value of the article. I concede that calling nash a psychopath is ad hominum. There is much to be criticised about game theory and this section can be valid if done well. I will do more work, but it will not be able to get better unless the section can survive on the page for more than 4 hours. For those unfamilliar with the criticisms of ame theory, please take my word that they are widespread, and the page will be more comprehensive if they are mentioned formally.Spencerk 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold. Generally with established articles (and especially featured articles), large discussions are brought to talk first. Even though your addition was reverted, hopefully we can come to a consensus on including the right amount of criticism in the article. One more note, BBC isn't a reliable source on game theory per WP:RS, BBC reporting on game theory fails more than one of the criteria in the section about non-scholarly sources. Its a case where a source has a different degree of reliability in different contexts, and we have many more reliable sources (published journal articles, books by reputable authors, etc) for discussing GT. Smmurphy 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i tried it in a section called Family, society, and personal relationships. it is incomplete and not properly referenced, but perhaps others can see value in it, that game theory fails to be appropriate in some contexts. If not, i will stop, being bold a third time is just annoying. thanks for discussion, Spencerk 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much of the problem with the material per se (except that it essentially duplicates some things said in the 'Descriptive' section) but I'm not sure that you put it in the right place. My feelings on the broader question are this: If the players are altruistic that's not a problem for game theory. It just means they're playing a different game. If the players are not completely rational, that's not a problem for game theory in many cases. Whatever cognitive or other constrains they face should be incorporated into the structure of the game and voila. I think it's important to distinguish between Game Theory as a tool of analysis, a methadology, and its applications. You can criticize the latter but criticizing the former is like criticizing calculus. But I also think that mentioning that there are many instances where people appear not to play Nash is important. Second, I think that the fact that the predictions of a game can be very sensitive to choice of parameters or structure of the game should also be mentioned. Third "criticism" would be the Folk Theorem - what good is a theory in which anything can happen? Of course all of these should be put in a proper context. radek 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hi radek, i think your idea is common amung game theorists, atleast the game theory teacher at my school also feels this way too i think. -"if the player cares about alruism or ethics or something, throw it in the payoffs". - this is psychological egoism. Take the soldier that jumps on the granade to save his soldiers for example. Its possible to explain his actions in somesort of payoff way, like honour or legacy or afterlife, but thats crazy! right!? atleast, this 'tool of analysis' recieves huge criticism in philosophy class. interesting, yes. usefull, yes. accurate, ...is self interest the best way of understanding the soldier jumping on the bomb? no way. soldier jumping on bomb is just one example, friendship eg applies also. i dont know what the folk theorem is. Spencerk 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this new section. Game theory is used widely in many different disciplines in many different ways. For example, game theory as used by biologists presume that the payoffs represent fitness, and that animals simply play a strategy which is (in some sense) biologically determined. Learning models used in evolutionary game theory are similar. The criticism offered in this section are not sufficiently general to apply to all of game theory, but only its use in one field (hence its location in economics). It is controversial whether individuals cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, but the other examples of non-nash play are already mentioned. The fact that it has been removed from the article does not prevent it from eventually being included there. We can put a draft of such a section here if you like and hammer it out. But I don't think the section is ready for the live version of the article yet. --best, kevin 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Laffer curve (Trialsanderrors)

The Laffer curve has no citations, but can someone (Trials?) verify that this really is a game theoretic analysis? It seems to me to be merely a weighted average driven effect from the new paragraph. 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"interact"/"compete"

Hi Knowsetfree, re: I think "interact" is better than "compete". You are right that "interact" doesn't capture the strongly competitive nature of things like the Hawk-dove game, (or zero sum games) on the one hand, but there are plenty of games, like coordination games, where the players have very strongly convergent interests. I think "compete" might also be taken to imply that players are trying to obtain higher payoff than their "opponents", rather than maximizing their returns, regardless of the other player's payoffs. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, all good points, and prisoners dilemma is another game where coordination is an option. Of course, coordination is a choice, at times resulting in an optimal strategy but that is dependent upon the other players. At the risk of broad generalization, I would hazard to say that most real world games have a "zero sum" component, in other words one agent trying to gain from another. Anyway, I can see how "Interact" is better in order to define the generalized meaning. Perhaps my impression of the importance and relevance of game theory to analyze competition / adversarial interaction would be best served by a sentence or two. When I get time, I should reread the article and see if it isn't already in there somewhere. -- Knowsetfree 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Computer science

This is as much a note to myself as anyone else. Joe Halpern has a nice encyclopedia article on the use of game theory in computer science . If someone wants to expand this section this might be a nice start. --best, kevin 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Too ambitious?

Since I knew of the existence of game theory, I wandered if it could be the instrument by means of which people could make better choices in every situation of their life. As far as I know, game theory is (or is supposed to be) widely used in economics. May also be in military operations. But what about everyday life? I must confess that the idea of writing this came to me after experiencing Second Life. The present computing capability could possibly allow to collect all the possible data about a problem or a choice an individual is not able to deal with alone. I think to have sufficiently outlined my idea. What do you think about it?paolo de magistris 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this has relevance to this page, but you could use GT to everyday conflict situaitons. Is it worth it? I am not sure. Building a model is often costly and time consuming. Most of the time you rely on your intuition. But when I bought a flat I tried to use GT in the negotiation.Koczy 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Change entry (heading) to non-cooperative game theory, or add section on cooperative games

The article as it stands now is misleading as it does not involve a distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games. The bulk (perhaps all) of the examples are based on non-cooperative games -- which is okay, as long as it is explained so. EnumaElish 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the stuff should go to Non-cooperative games.Koczy 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood

I removed a section about game theory in hollywood plots. As this didn't seem to relate to game theory, but just conflict of interest I don't think it's appropriate here. --best, kevin 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Gaming the system" removed from lead

The following was removed from the Lead at the end:

Applying game theory to procedures and organisation in real life is often called gaming the system. This has a negative connotation and usually implies disingenuous behaviour.

Reasons: There is no citation for it; it is misleading. It is misleading, because 'larcenous' would be a better term than "disingenuous" at least by William Safire's account of the term. It is also misleading, because there is no necessity that one who acts like an accomplished player (say, Mother Teresa efficiently trying make the world a better place or the Allies after careful analysis picking the Normandy landing to shorten the war) is "gaming the system."

A better explication of 'gaming the system' would be exploiting weaknesses of the system in a way regarded as larcenous in effect. That may suggest that the system needs fixing or the character of the gamer is nefarious. But there is no necessity that a good player is larcenous or nefarious.

It is possible that someone can establish the genealogy of 'gaming the system' as relating to game theory rather than say gambling (as in 'gaming the house'). Even so, is that worth mentioning it in this article, considering how misleading the connection might be? --Thomasmeeks 10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (sp. fix Thomasmeeks 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Degenerate and nondegenerate games

The article is missing definition and discussion of degenerate and nondegenerate games. -- Vinsci 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class game theory articles
• Top-importance game theory articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• FA-Class mathematics articles
• High-priority mathematics articles
• FA-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles