Creating a Payoff MatrixDate: 06/04/2003 at 20:44:04 From: Elena Subject: Game theory problem: how to create a payoff matrix Shoe Town and Fancy Foot are both vying for more share of the market. If Shoe Town does no advertising, it will not lose any share of the market as long as Fancy Foot does nothing. Shoe Town will lose 2% of the market if Fancy Foot invests $10,000 in advertising, and it will lose 5% of the market if Fancy Foot invests $20,000 in advertising. On the other hand, if Shoe Town invests $15,000 in advertising, it will gain 3% of the market as long as Fancy Foot does nothing; it will gain 1% of the market if Fancy Foot invests $10,000 in advertising, and it will lose 1% if Fancy Foot invests $20,000 in advertising. (A) Develop a payoff table for this problem. (B) Determine the various strategies. Fancy Foot Y1 Y2 Y3 Shoe X1 -2% -5% 0 Town X2 1% -1% 3 Date: 06/04/2003 at 21:30:32 From: Doctor Shawn Subject: Re: Game theory problem: how to create a payoff matrix Elena, Your payoff matrix is a good attempt, but keep in mind that each player in this 2-player game has a payoff from each endpoint of the game. Shoe Town has two pure strategies: do nothing (X1), or invest $15,000 in advertising (X2). Fancy Foot has three strategies: do nothing (Y1), invest $10,000 in advertising (Y2), or invest $20,000 in advertising (Y3). There are only two shoe stores in town, so if one of them gains market share, the other one has to lose it. This is called a zero-sum game. The revised payout table looks like this, with payoffs of (Shoe Town, Fancy Foot): Fancy Foot Y1 Y2 Y3 S. X1 (+0,-0) (-2%,+2%) (-5%,+5%) T. X2 (+3%,-3%) (+1%,-1%) (-1%,+1%) Now we want to find if there is a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. Look first to Shoe Town. If they play strategy X2, they always do better than if they play X1, no matter what Fancy Foot does. That means that X1 is a _strongly dominated_ strategy, and no rational player will ever choose to play X1. Fancy Foot knows this, so they'll choose the strategy that will give them the most payoff in X2, namely Y3. Therefore, the Nash equilibrium for this game is (X2, Y3) and both players spend their maximum advertising revenue. This brings up a very interesting and subtle point. The payoffs in a game like this are usually measured in "utils" and not money or market share. The point of that is that you want to use something of equal value to both players, even if it's not necessarily the same amount of stuff. For instance, $100 is not worth as much to Ted Turner as it is to me. As a result, you should be careful about making conclusions in this game. I was assuming that the payoff in market share was worth any cost to the players, but in reality losing 2% of market share might actually be worth less than $10,000. If that's the case, then the players will choose different strategies. I hope that helps! - Doctor Shawn, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994- The Math Forum at NCTM. All rights reserved.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/