A player is said to be rational if he maximizes expected value of his utility function, as described in the game. The previous lecture explored the implications of rationality. This was captured by dominance. In natural strategic environments, this often yields weak predictions. Moreover the games in which dominance alone leads to a sharp prediction (e. g. the games with a dominant strategy equilibrium) are not interesting for game theory because in such a game each playerâ€™s decision can be analyzed separately without requiring a game theoretical analysis.

True or False

Question

Business

Greenie

28 April, 03:40

A player is said to be rational if he maximizes expected value of his utility function, as described in the game. The previous lecture explored the implications of rationality. This was captured by dominance. In natural strategic environments, this often yields weak predictions. Moreover the games in which dominance alone leads to a sharp prediction (e. g. the games with a dominant strategy equilibrium) are not interesting for game theory because in such a game each playerâ€™s decision can be analyzed separately without requiring a game theoretical analysis.

True or False

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Valerie Downs · Answer 1

True

Explanation:

A player is said to be rational if he maximizes expected value of his utility function, as described in the game. The previous lecture explored the implications of rationality. This was captured by dominance. In natural strategic environments, this often yields weak predictions. Moreover the games in which dominance alone leads to a sharp prediction (e. g. the games with a dominant strategy equilibrium) are not interesting for game theory because in such a game each playerâ€™s decision can be analyzed separately without requiring a game theoretical analysis. In games, it is common knowledge that every player is rational but one assumes much more than rationality