Closed davagin closed 7 years ago
From your description I cannot see anything wrong. The game has a continuum of Nash equilibria, comprising a convex set with four extreme equilibria. All of those Nash equilibria have the same realisation in terms of behaviour strategy profiles, however. That all seems consistent with what you describe.
I am trying to play with program. And something struck me as odd.
This is a simple game for which I am trying to find Nash equilibrium. ================= Begin ========================== EFG 2 R "A simple Poker game" { "Fred" "Alice" } ""
c "" 1 "" { "Red" 1/2 "Black" 1/2 } 0 p "" 1 1 "" { "Raise" "Fold" } 0 p "" 2 1 "" { "Meet" "Pass" } 0 c "" 2 "" { "1" 1/2 "2" 1/2 } 0 p "" 1 2 "" { "1" "2" } 0 p "" 2 2 "" { "1" "2" } 0 t "" 1 "Win Very Big" { 3, -3 } t "" 2 "Win Big" { 2, -2 } t "" 3 "Lose Big" { -2, 2 } p "" 1 3 "" { "1" "2" } 0 p "" 2 3 "" { "1" "2" } 0 t "" 4 "Lose Very Big" { -3, 3 } t "" 2 "Win Big" { 2, -2 } t "" 3 "Lose Big" { -2, 2 } t "" 5 "Win" { 1, -1 } t "" 6 "Lose" { -1, 1 } p "" 1 4 "" { "Raise" "Fold" } 0 p "" 2 1 "" { "Meet" "Pass" } 0 c "" 3 "" { "1" 1/2 "2" 1/2 } 0 p "" 1 5 "" { "1" "2" } 0 p "" 2 2 "" { "1" "2" } 0 t "" 4 "Lose Very Big" { -3, 3 } t "" 2 "Win Big" { 2, -2 } t "" 3 "Lose Big" { -2, 2 } p "" 1 6 "" { "1" "2" } 0 p "" 2 3 "" { "1" "2" } 0 t "" 1 "Win Very Big" { 3, -3 } t "" 2 "Win Big" { 2, -2 } t "" 3 "Lose Big" { -2, 2 } t "" 5 "Win" { 1, -1 } t "" 6 "Lose" { -1, 1 } ================== End =========================
The problem is following:
What is the problem with it? Am I doing something wrong?