"Game theory studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or "player" depends on the actions of all. If you are a player in such a game, when choosing your course of action or "strategy" you must take into account the choices of others. But in thinking about their choices, you must recognize that they are thinking about yours, and in turn trying to take into account your thinking about their thinking, and so on."
You may have heard of Nash Equilibrium (A Beautiful Mind) where the two players establish the actions that will be in both of their best interests. This is usually explained using the Prisoners Dilemma (see below)
Say Ben and Alice have both been arrested for the same crime and are being held in separate cells. They are questioned by the police and have the following options; confess or stay silent. What should each do?
If both confess they each get 1 year in prison, if both stay silent they get 3 years apiece. If one confesses and the other stays silent, the confessor gets 5 years and the other one goes free. Game theory explains what strategy each player should select to minimize their time in jail.
Click on the link below, watch the video from the British game show "Golden Balls" and answer the 3 questions in your response.
http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2012/04/20/golden-balls-game-theory-the-prisoners-dilemma-and-the-cold-rationality-of-human-behavior/
Cailin O'Connell
ReplyDeleteP. 2
1. Sarah chose to steal because she was convinced that Steve would indubitably split. With this combination, Sarah would receive 100,000 pounds while Steve would receive nothing. Sarah acts in her own self-interest, maximizing her satisfaction.
2. Steve made it clear that he would split, which is a poor strategy to take when trying to dissuade a complete stranger, who has no tie to you whatsoever, to also split. He let his emotions skew his judgment. I would have tried to convince Sarah beyond reasonable doubt that I would steal, then have selected split so the 100,000 pounds would be split evenly.
3. Oligopolistic markets often try to reach agreements similar to the split or steal dilemma, such as standardizing prices or setting guidelines. The thing is that each firm can never be certain of what the other firms’ actions will be when it comes time to go to market. Cartels and collusive agreements fail because man is self-serving and cold in most situations. People behave rationally by seeking to maximize their satisfaction. Thus, oil exporting countries and seemingly genuine game show contestants sell out their counterparts for their own personal gain.
Evan Young
ReplyDelete2nd Period
1. If both of the players chose steal, they would both go home with nothing. If one chose Steal and the other chose Split, the steal would win the prize. If both chose split, they would split the prize. Sarah chose steal to get back at her opponent; the utility of winning 100,00 instead of 50,000 outweighs the fact that the Steve would get nothing; even though she would feel bad, she goes home with twice as much money.
2. Steve was not totally wrong. He trusted her, but that proves that everyone wants the greater benefit to themselves. He believed that doing the right thing would maximize his utility by getting a large sum of money and a feeling of selflessness. I would have chosen steal; I would rather go home with nothing AND have her go home with nothing as well.
3. Oligopolies face this problem a lot of times. Firms can meet to discuss prices and settle prices, but it is unknown whether the firms will act upon their word.
Emigdio Escobedo
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Answers to discussion questions:
1. Sarah's greed and self interest proved greater than that of Steve's, mostly because she knew Steve would choose to split. So she took advantage of the man's generosity and fairness to keep all to herself.
2. If Steve knew a thing or two about body language, he would have noticed that Sarah clearly had bad intentions, but Steve did nothing wrong. He simply trusted Sarah and his gut hoping she would comply and be fair. I personally noticed Sarah was up to no good from the start, so i would have chosen to go home with nothing for either one.
3. Like Sarah and Steve, firms in oligopoly markets try to make a deal with each other in which everyone wins. But at the same time, there is greed between the firms and one decides to make things to their own advantage and have everyone else lose money, so these "deals" almost never work between firms in oligopoly markets.
1) Sarah chose steal rather than collaborating with Steve to share the $100,000 because any fair person with faith in the justice of other people, including themselves in the pot, would pick to split, so no one have to whine all the way home with empty hands in their pockets. Considering most people of a certain society would believe in fairness, she would hope everyone picks split, but no one ever really does because we all want something more than what is attainable, even if we don't know it. Thus, she chose steal while he chose split because what gentleman wouldn't for a lady in mannered society, not necessarily civil? Steve obviously wanted the money more, so he trusted her ethics as a human in a society more than their own nature of I. Want. Stuff. Loser. Besides, aren't we all happier when we steal? We're winning aren't we? Isn't that all anyone wants: to be on the winning side? Oh, what risk a life is, or is life itself. Steve trusted too much in ethics while their was more reality in nature as id fights superego for an ego like Sarah's basically.
ReplyDelete2) I wouldn't say Steve was completely wrong, even though would have been fairer to choose the same option. I probably would have done the same thing, giving the benefit of the doubt in people to be decent at least. They don't have to be good because that's to hard obviously. But Sarah could have at least been decent. Sure, $100,000 is better than $50,000, but it just doesn't seem all that efficient, but then I doubt this because too much of the same thing has no imagination until someone gets tired enough of it to change it, so maybe it does work. Split.
3)The choices made by Steve and Sarah relate to those faced by firms in olipolitic markets in how they must essentially decide to together for the well-being of all or use that groupthink to take it for themselves as a single-person monopoly instead because the group can't make its members as the members can make the group that way. Thus, collusive agreements oligopolists often fall apart because no one really wants to be the exactly same as everyone else. Sure, everyone may agree on a set price, but that does not mean everyone believes in it fully to always support it as they know to much about each other, almost making them pluralist, if not hyperpluralist, in how their choices are made because I doubt it was all a personal majority. It was just a bet because its hard to agree, so why bother disagreeing? That is basically why cartels like OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets their leaders agreed upon. It was pure appeasement, which never was going to work for Hitler either. These leaders were all just trying to please each other to please themselves, which means giving up more than some people really want to do. Only their brains decided the target while the heart has greater strength than an equilibrium or average can convey. No one agrees in appeasement, even if they support it because ideals aren't necessarily reality.
Amy Krauhs
Period 4
1. Sarah stole, which proves Nash's theory on selfishness when it comes to humans. When you remove social stigma and judgment, people will do many shocking things, but in the end it all boils down to the same reason: self-interest.
ReplyDelete2. Steve was not wrong. He chose the option that gave him the best chance at winning the sum of money, and it also would have helped Sarah if she chose split because they would both receive money. I would have chosen steal and told the other person that I would not choose split at all. I would tell them that the only ball I would choose is steal, and if they choose split, I would give them half of the money after the show. In the end the only option they would have to make money is to choose split, and then I would choose split as well. This guarantees that my opponent would choose steal and that I would walk away with money.
3. This part of the show is like an oligopoly because while in a utopian oligarchy, all companies would choose the same base price for their products and services, at least one company will always undercut and take the most profits.
Aadithya Srivatsav
6th
Grace Cha
ReplyDelete2nd Period
1) In the Steal or Split situation the player choose to maximize their profit by either splitting it to avoid getting nothing at all (assuming the other person does the same) or steals to take everything (if the other chooses splitting). Sarah chose to steal the money because she wants to avoid getting cheated on like the last time. Steve has shown the dominant character of stealing in the first round so, Sarah, learning from this, obviously chooses to steal the money because she is sure that Steve will split the money this time.
2) Steve was not completely wrong in this situation, but he was desperately hoping that Sarah had not changed since the last round in which she chose to split. In this way, he wanted to leave the game having good feeling from splitting the money while getting the actual money. He wanted a win win situation, but he was betrayed like how he betrayed her. Ultimately greed took over.
3) The situation that Steve and Sarah that was shown in the game relates to the relationship between collusive agreements between oligopolists which often falls apart. Let's say for example that company A and B both agree to to set a price for the price of their iphones. However, one company can choose to betray the other company and set their own prices at a lower price than the other to attract more people and sell more. This is same for OPEC. All the countries can agree on the price, but one can go and betray the others by the innate greed that is in everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
ReplyDelete1) Sarah chose to steal because she understands that she poses as an innocent young girl and the man does not want to appear as a mean middle aged person who cheated a girl out of a lot of money. Sarah uses her appearance as an advantage to swindle money from the man. She realizes that the world will dislike her for her dishonesty, but if she can get through the next hour of criticism, then she will not see a lot of the people around her ever again. She may get lectured at by her friends, but she has a lot more money to enjoy herself with.
2) Steve was not totally wrong in choosing split. Steve placed his trust in a stranger because he was good natured and had a good view of society. Steve should have made an agreement where both Steve and Sarah hands over their car keys or something valuable to the game show host. If both people choose split, then both contestants get their car keys back. If one person attempts to swindle the other, then the swindler does not get their keys back. If both swindle, then neither get their keys back. This plan what I would have done.
3) In oligopolistic markets, the firms attempt to fix prices to where all firms charge the same price, usually expensive. However, there is usually at least one seller that chooses to lower their price to gain all of the customers. Once firms realize that the other firms have let their guard down for the well-being of all companies, the one firm attempts to be greedy and take everything for themselves. OPEC fails to keep a consistent high price on oil because it is difficult to make every nation to promise to sell oil at the same high price. When one nation does not keep their end of the agreement, then the other nations feel as if they are not obligated either and all oil is at various prices.
1.Sarah choose to steal because she knows she can probably get away with it also just plain human greed
ReplyDelete2.no not really he wanted to be true to himself and keep his morals.if i was him i wouldn't split i would steal{cant trust nobody}
3.they try to work together but always have there own interest set first in the end. they fall apart because one usually breaks from the group to seek there own profits first.because it is hard to make a nation have a set price for oil.
Samantha Chan
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
1) In this case, both contestants had to choose a split or steal ball. This was a conscious decision which was discussed between the two contestants with no tricks from the game host, only trust or trickery from the opponents themselves. Sarah chose the steal ball in this case because she was convinced that Steve would choose the split ball. Having already been tricked once, she chose the steal ball knowing that Steve would choose the split ball to get the jackpot. Human greed was a huge factor.
2) Steve was not wrong to choose the split ball. He simply had a lot of trust in Sarah and that was his own flaw. In all honesty, there is no right or wrong in this game. This is a game of trust or deceit. It can go either way for the contestants. In all honesty, if I was in Steve's situation I would have chose to steal because I just wouldn't trust that woman (she acted scared that he would chose steal because she had already planned to choose steal).
3) Oligopolistic markets have firms that attempt to agree upon one price. Although it may work for some time, as shown through this game, you can not trust the other to be faithful to promises. While firms may agree to set a price, there is always the risk of the other using this as an opportunity to gain more profit and betray the trust of other firms. This is why cartels fail to achieve high price targets agreed upon.
Amanda Salmon 2nd period
ReplyDelete1)This game is all about the Game Theory, which is a theory revolving around the idea that there are only three options: both win, only one wins, or no one wins. Sarah choose steal because she wanted the money all to her self, she was more confident that Steve would pick slip so it was her best option to steal.
2)Steve was gullible in believing that Sarah would share the money. I would have chosen Steal and then both of us would have gone away poor.
3)With Oligopoly markets there is the risk of joining forces to make the best deal and then being cheated out of it by one of the firms who sees their option of making more money. Collusive agreements don't work because there is the risk of losing profit and there is no way of truly trusting other firm's because their goal is to make the most money. They fail because often one of the firms leaders leaves the group to make a better profit than the others in the group.
Amie Jean- 2nd period
ReplyDelete1. Sarah did exactly what I would do. She saw the opportunity to steal after she had the Steve trapped emotionally. Who wants to split money when they can have it all? By appealing to Steve on an emotional level Sarah practiced risky business that resulted in her success
2. Steve was not wrong to choose split. He was wrong to have complete faith and trust in another human being. I would have chosen steal if I were him. Only because he would either have it all or they both would have had nothing which is better than being snaked like he was.
3. Cheating is too attractive in oligopolistic market agreement, which is why the markets fall apart. Cartels fail to achieve the high price targets because producers try to outsmart each other by undercutting product prices to increase the demand of their products.
What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000? At the end of the day, most people just want to make the most money that they can. Sarah used a deceptive tactic in order to convince Steve that she would split the money with him; Steve most likely thought Sarah would pull the same moves that Nick and Abraham did. Sarah turned out to be greedier than Steve expected.
ReplyDeleteWas Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation? I do not think that Steve was totally wrong to choose split. Under pressure, it can be hard to make such a huge decision. I would probably have chosen steal, though, because I do not think I would trust my opponent in such a situation.
How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders? It is hard to come to consensus with another individual. If it is so difficult to deal with another person, like on this game show, then it must be extremely difficult for cartels such as OPEC to achieve their price targets. While one person may be saying something, there is no way to tell what business strategy they may be using in order to maximize their profit.
PERIOD 6
ReplyDelete1.) Sarah did what most young people would do. keep all the money. To her, there is no reason for her to share the money. For her it was basically a win win if they both didn't get steal. either she would get the entire money or she would get half. she took a risk and won by stealing.
2.) Steve wasn't wrong to choose split. I'm pretty sure that he thought she was also going to choose split, hoping that they can split the money. I would most likely chose steal due to the greed of others when it comes to money.
3.) Like Sarah and Steve, oligopoly markets tries to make a deal with one another in which everyone wins, but at the same time, there is a temptation between firms thinking that they should just keep all the money. therefore leading them to cheat and get all the money.this shows that collusive agreements do not work out.
Michelle Pacheco
ReplyDelete6th Period
1) They both wanted all the money but Steve was convinced that Sarah was going to choose split. But Sarah picked the golden ball that said steal because she knew that Steve would choose split by the way he was saying everything. Sarah was only thinking of revenge and of all the past things that happened, so she was selfish when she made the decision
2) Steve was not wrong at all, he was just hoping that Sarah could collaborate with the best option that was splitting the money. He chose the option that both could win something and not go home with an empty hand. I would think about the past rounds and if any idea came to my mind that why she would pick split and if I didn´t find anything then I would chose steal and be in the same level like my opponent
3) In Oligopolistic markets the firms have an attempt to fix prices to where they are all the same. But like any other business there is always one that wants to win more than the competition, they fall apart because of that single change in price that makes the difference between the same product, but not the same prices.
1. Sarah stole the money because was "stabbed in the back last time". Steve was 100% genuine when he said that he was going to split the money, but she still stole the money anyways.
ReplyDelete2. No, Steve was not wrong to split. He was happy with going home with 50,000 pounds. In this situation, I would've believed Sarah too and gone with the split.
3. The decisions made by Steve and Sarah are similar to firms oligopolitic markets in that firms back-stab other companies after making a deal. This is exactly what happened in the recent OPEC meeting. All the members decided on selling the petroleum at a certain ceiling price, but Saudi Arabia started selling it at a much lower price, forcing other countries to lower their prices and slowing their development.
Jenny Simon
ReplyDelete2nd Period
1). Morally, I do not think what Sarah did was right, however, economically, she did what she had to do and that was the best decision. This was her only opportunity to have all the money...Why would she not take advantage of it?
2). Steve was not at all wrong for his decision. He was perfectly glad going home with half the money, but he went wrong in trusting another human being to quickly.
3). The problem with the Oligopolistic Market is that they try to convince people that everyone gets a win win, but in reality one has to go down for the other to have the whole win. The reason why these markets fall apart way too quickly is due to the fact that cheating is a common ongoing strategy within this market.
Felix Chang
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1.Steve, is willing to split the money because the trade off of running the risk of gaining nothing at all is less than the 50/50 chance of gaining 50,000pounds. However for Sarah, the trade of of taking the risk of gaining nothing is less than the gain she receives by stealing and taking 100,000.
2. Logically, there is nothing wrong with Steve's choice, he just failed to convince Sarah to split the money. If it were me, I would try to convince my counterpart to split and I would choose steal.
3. Like an oligarchy, the two contestants must come to an agreement to both make profit, but if both were greedy and try to gain at the other's expense, both would be at loss. Oligarchies are few sellers who control the market and make agreements on setting a certain price. This market structure often falls apart because people tend to seek to maximize their own utility even at the expense of another.
Anthony Colesante
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
Sara had chose steal rather than split due to the fact that Steve could not be trusted. It was either they both got nothing or she got all due to the fact that she had been screwed over earlier in the show.
Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
Steve was wrong to split. If he had already lied to her earlier in the show he should have known she could not trust her. The only reasonable thing to do is lie to Sarah and pick steal.
This show shows us a perfect example of how oligopolies work. You must put your trust into someone that you both pick there reasonable thing. Oligopolies consist of few sellers who control 40 percent or more of the market. It often falls apart due to the nature of humans and greed
Jacqueline Gann
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
1) Sarah chose to steal because she thought that she couldn't rely on Steve to split the pot because of past experience. She wanted to make sure she went home with some money.
2) Steve was not wrong to choose split because he truly believed that Sarah was going to split the pot because he placed trust in his opponent. I would have made the same decision as Steve and hoped my opponent would keep his/ her word.
3)This is similar to an oligopoly because a decision by one player in this game influences what happens to both of the player, similar to the actions of a seller in an oligopoly market. Agreements in these markets tend to fall apart because of distrust between its members. Self interest in these situations cause the high price targets not to be reached.
Madeline Alcock 6
ReplyDelete1. Sarah chose to steal because in the past Steve proved himself untrustworthy.
2. He was not wrong and I would of done the exact same thing because we trusted her.
3. In an Oligopoly firms have to make price choices based on others words and actions. They fall apart because people generally distrust each other. They cannot achieve high prices because at least one person will go lower
Period 2
ReplyDelete1) Sarah stole because she was assured that Steve would split. Because he was (almost certainly) going to split, she knew how to weight her decision ($50,000 if she split, $100,000 if she stole) and chose accordingly.
2) Steve was wrong to split. If Sarah split he could steal, but if she stole then there is no winning strategy for Steve. He was essentially stuck. If I were a contestant in this situation, my best choice would have been to either convince the other person to split and I had a winning total that was greater or equal to my opponent's (steal whether or not they split or steal).
3) Oligopolies have to play such a game all the time. If one firm does something without knowing what the other firm's possible choices are in the situation, they could lose their profit. Collusion, the equivalent to having both parties agree to split, often falls apart because of what Sarah did to Steve. A firm in a cartel or other collusive agreement can trick the other firms to trust them and then change the price to win them a better profit.
1. Sarah stole because she did not trust completely in Steve. She had problems in gender differences and not being able to trust the opposite gender.
ReplyDelete2.He should have outweighed the consequences and thought of the strategies that lie within the game in order to win it. Being wise would have helped in the situation.
3.Oligopolies have to base their business on the economy and how others are doing. They cannot set their own price or product because the economy is what stimulates the profit. Collusion does not work because companies are greedy with money. Cartels are able to bend the laws and make agreements in order to establish their business.
Jocelyn Dang
ReplyDelete4th period
1)Sarah's intentions were to just leave with money. She had doubts about trusting another person, who has a say in how much she would win. She chose to steal, relying on only her decision to steal in order to win as much money as she could.
2) Steve was being naive in his choice. In a situation about money, people are more likely to be selfish and choose the option that benefits them the most. However, being goodhearted, he decided to trust in Sarah, which is good character, but it made him lose.
3)In any oligopoly, the firms involved are driven by money, not necessarily the contentment of the other firms. So, receiving the most profit is their priority. Thus, firms may sabotage or make decisions that negatively affect the others, but give themselves a boost. Thus, when all firms cannot be profitable, the oligopoly falls apart and no one ends up profitable.
Joe Thomas
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1) Sarah was certain that Steve would spit, so in her mind she had a choice between 50,000 and 100,000. Sarah has also been betrayed before so she didnt want to risk it happening again. This is another force that steve tried to anticipate for by assuring her he would split for her, but it ended up being his demise.
2)No, steve was trying to be a nice person and he knew that 50,000 is a great deal of money for both of them. He believed that Sarah's previous experience had changed her in a way that would make her not want to put a person in her position and lose all that money like she did, but instead it changed her into a less trusting person and she stole.
3)In Ologopolies, a firm always tries to betray the others and gain a maximum profit if the others are trying to form a collusion. This is way it always fails.
Keanu Florence
ReplyDelete4th Period
1. Sarah chose to steal rather than to split because she played on Steve's emotions and probable guilt and got him to agree to split the money. Sarah was greedy and wanted all the money to herself as a form of revenge.
2. Steve was not totally wrong to choose the split ball. Steve trusted Sarah just as I would have in his situation and sadly things did not turn out in his favor.
3.Oligoplies face the same sort of decisions as Steve and Sarah when they decide to form a collusion. The oligopolies have to trust that they will keep to their words and not use this as an opportunity to make more money. There is usually at least one dishonest party in the group.
Twinkle Joseph
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
1. Sarah acts on self interest and maximizes her satisfaction by choosing the steal ball. She takes advantage of the fact that Steve will pick the split ball and lets greed take over.
2. Steve isn't wrong. Actually, this just shows that he is a good person and chooses to trust Sarah. However, he is fooled and should realize the situation. Since it is regarding money, he should know that people wouldn't necessarily act in idealistic ways.
3.Oligopolies are similar because since they are in competition with each other in the market, they have to act on each others decisions. What someone else does affects their outcome so they do a similar game of guessing and playing smart. These things don't always work because there is distrust between the companies, and bad human nature comes into action. They are working with money, and money usually is followed by greed.
Jayson Varughese
ReplyDelete4th period
1. In this scenario, players choose to maximize their profit by either splitting the money or stealing all of it. Sarah was cheated from her money last time when Steve chose to steal, so she chooses to steal the money this round. Sarah steals the money with the intention that Steve will split which results in her walking away with alot of money.
2. Steve wasnt wrong to choose split. He trusted in Sarah and that was what caused him to lose money. I would have chosen to split because whatever the circumstance, i would still end up getting some amount of money.
3. This situation in the game represents the relation of collusive agreements between oligopolists which often tends to not be successful. This is because one company can betray another company and set their own prices lower than others, stealing away all of the business. This also applies to OPEC. One country could do this just to steal away more business.
Gabby Chaney
ReplyDelete4th Period
1) Sarah has 100,000 dollars in front of her face and an easy man to manipulate. She looks out for the self- interest for herself. In her mind she was either thinking this man is easy to take money from because he is too kind or she could have taken his kindness for manipulation and he could habe turned against her.
2) Steve was not wrong by choosing split, but he trusted the girl's young and kind outer appeal than addressing the facts to her. If it were me I would have discussed more and elaborated on my intentions than trusting Sarah. She would have not pulled an easy one on me.
3) This whole system is based on human morals and trust. For an oligopoly or cartels, businessmen are faced with choices that they both agree or disagree upon. Once money, bonuses, or benefits come into the picture that is when the game theory comes into play, and then businessmen decide to cheat or conduct secret deals.
Timothy Krauhs
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
1. Sarah seems to believe that Steve can be easily manipulated so she believes she can take the 100,000 dollars.
2. Steve made a decision to spilt which due to his kind nature to a attractive younger women.
3. This whole system is based on human morals and trust. For an oligopoly or cartels, businessmen are faced with choices that they both agree or disagree upon. Once money, bonuses, or benefits come into the picture that is when the game theory comes into play, and then businessmen decide to cheat or conduct secret deals.
Muizz Soomar
ReplyDelete6th Period
1) Sarah and Steve talked out to going home with half of the money, and they were closely agreeing to each others terms until they revealed each others balls, and Sarah stabbed Steve in the back taking home all of the money. She was smart to do what she did even though she hurt Steve.
2) Steve may have been a man of his word, but I think he was wrong to pick split rather than steal. You cant trust everyone. I would've picked steal also, since I do not trust anyone and I want to win the money. Either way, we would find out who was the liar and we would see who would win. It is a chance that I would take.
3) This does relate to oligopolitic markets since they both agree on something but in the end, one wants something even more than the other. They do this so one can have the advantage, and its one for all. There is no teams, its just be selfish and do what you can to get the better half. OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders since the competitors may lower their price in order to get more consumers to come to them.
2nd Period
ReplyDelete1) Sarah chose to steal because Steve initially told her that he would split. If he is reliable, by choosing to steal, she would walk away will all of the money. However, she was probably afraid that if she chose to split as well and Steve was actually lying the entire time, then HE would win all the money, and she would feel guilty for trusting in him.
2) I do not think that Steve was completely wrong, but he did luck out. What happened was that Steve demonstrated more trust in Sarah than Sarah in him. He was hoping to convince her to split as well during their discussion period, but Sarah turned on him and stole. I probably would have done what Sarah did, though.
3) The decisions made by Steve and Sarah mirror those made by oligopolies in that they must work together to reach a conclusion. The money in dispute would be their profits, and they must decide how to split/steal the money.
Natalia Chudumebi Opara
ReplyDelete6th Period
1) Sarah chose to steal because Steve told her that he would split. She was probably afraid that if she chose to split as well and Steve might have been lying all along, then he would win all the money.
2) I do not think that Steve was completely wrong because he had more trust in Sarah than Sarah in him. He trying to convince her to split as well during their discussion period, but Sarah chose to steal. I probably would have done what Sarah did.
3) The decisions made by Steve and Sarah are used by oligopolies in that they must work together to reach a conclusion. They have to strategies to see what their opponent would be doing.
DaasTheBoss
ReplyDeleteI'm a man, I don't get periods.
1. The answer to this question is so blatantly obvious, I am honestly offended that someone would even ask me this. Obviously, Sarah is a human and it is a well-known fact that humans, being the savages animals, are self- motivated, greedy, irrstional assholes. That is why Sarah, being a human being (a female one at that) chose to steal, her dominant way of getting the most money.
2. Obviously anything that anyone other than me does, is wrong. Therefore, Stephen was wrong too. What I would have done is steal, because that's the most dominant way of making money. I would convince the peon wallowing in his misery across from me that I would split but I would really steal. It wouldn't even matter if he picks steal too because I don't need any of that pocket change, I would just love to crush another mans hopes and dreams.
3. Just like humans, firms in the real world are even bigger assholes. What some of the greedier oligopolists try to do is form cartels and work together, but this doesn't work because one firm will end up setting a lower price, attracting more peons to their business and away from all the other shitty businesses, the ultimate middle finger of the business world. Cartels are actually a good idea if game theory were not a thing but then it essential becomes a monopoly and because of some self-righteous asshats thinking they know how to run this country, monpolies have become illegal, ruining the fun for the rest for us. Thanks Obama.
Daas out
HOLY shish kabob m8. Mt sides have blown themselves out of this galaxy.
DeleteAxel Cuypers
ReplyDelete4th Period
1.Sarah chose to steal because she thought that she couldn't rely on Steve to split the pot because of past experience. She wanted to make sure she went home with some money.
2. Steve's decision of splitting wasn't wrong, it is 100% acceptable since he trusted Sarah.
3. For an oligopoly or cartels, businessmen are faced with choices that they both agree or disagree upon. The decisions made by Sarah and Steve were based on oligopoly.
Luke Chacko
ReplyDelete6th period
1. Sarah has a low sense of trust because she had a bad experience where she got back stabbed and lost all her money. So she couldn't believe Steve.
2. Steve did the best choice he could have based on the trust he placed in Sarah. Steal would've caused them both to lose money.
3. The firms in an oligopoly must have trust in the other firm in their deals not to lower their prices and take all the money and customers. But like Sarah and Steve example, one firm may choose to take advantage of the other firm.
Angela San Juan
ReplyDelete2nd Period
1. Sarah chose to steal in order to act in her own best interest. In order to maximize her own satisfaction, she rather chooses to steal knowingly that Steve would choose to split.
2. Steve wasn’t wrong to choose split. He trusted Sarah because the best outcome for both of them was splitting, both benefiting by sharing the money in half. Sarah didn’t trust Steve as much as Steve would have thought. If I were him, I would think twice about the decision that I would be making and analyze the overall situation and determine the best possible outcome.
3. Oligopolistic markets are firms with agreements through mutual understanding to act through their best interest in order to maximize satisfaction. Similarly, oligopolistic markets are somewhat alike with this split or steal dilemma. They face these similar problems countless of times. They all set upon agreements to fix prices, but uncertain if other firms would act upon of what exactly said.
Chinemerem Opara
ReplyDelete6th period
1. Sarah chose to steal because previously she referred to how she was "stabbed in the back" and could not afford to let it happen again. secondly, she also fooled simon by gaining his trust in order for her to have the full maximum benefit
2. simon's intention is good because splitting the money up will be very advantageous to both. it is because they could walk away with $50,000 dollars each. however, the idea of game theory is that humans will selfishly act to maximize their benefit, which sarah did. if he had understood this at that time, he would have also selfishly act to maximize his interest. overall, the solution could have been that both the contestants should have worked to gain his/her's trust
3. This kind of game theory that is present in the choices of Simon and Sarah are similar to oligopolistic competition in a cartel. Cartels can either split "choose a set price and abide by it and mutually benefit", or steal "whereby one firm undercuts the others and takes a profit, or both firms undercut and both loose out". I think that with respect to big countries, it is almost impossible to have complete confidence in each other's integrity, as there is always the overwhelming temptation to act selfishly and gain maximum benefit for oneself by abusing the trust of another party.
4th Period
ReplyDelete1. Sarah chose steal because she knew that if she made it look like he was the one that was bluffing, he wouldn't be worrying about if she was going to split or steal. Also, she has been on the show before and was cheated out of her money and didn't want to face that again. Whether he picked steal or split, her opponent wasn't going to walk out with money if she didn't.
2. He didn't do anything wrong, he was just foolish because he wasn't thinking about a strategy she might have been using... distraction. I knew she was going to steal because she diverted all of the attention off of her. Its basically like a scary movie- who do you least expect? Since I knew she was going to steal, I would have stolen too because if I'm not leaving with money then nobody is.
3. Oligopolistic competition is surrounded by the game theory. Businesses and cartels have to face a decision everyday as to what they think their competitors are doing. They set up an agreement but when there is a choice to get more, a.k.a. greed, the trust that the agreement was based on is now pushed to the furthest limit.
1. Sarah chose to steal because it is the best option for her personal benefit. It was easy for her to take the money without many problems simply because it was in front of her. And once again that would be better for her.
ReplyDelete2. He was not wrong because in his situation, he believed that he was going to benefit as well. He was trying to be reasonable. And also nice in a way by putting Sarah in mind too.
3. For an oligopoly or cartel, companies agree on something so that they all benefit the same and no one is ahead or behind. However, some may cheat. This is similar to this situation because Sarah cheated and didnt go along with the agreement where they would both benefit.
Mackenzie Boudreau
ReplyDelete2nd
1. Sarah chooses to steal because she wants to maximize her own satisfaction and because she knows Steve was going to split so she has the chance to take all the money and is going for it.
2. Although Steve was not totally wrong in his choice to split because he was trying to see that both of them came out with money, and had I been in the situation I would have probably done the same thing and hoped that Sarah would have also split.
3. Firms in the oligopolistic markets have to constantly be aware of their competitors changing their minds which will effect their company. Normally agreements and cartels will dissolve the same way the deal between Sarah and Steve happened, someone will not follow the rules of the agreement and will end up cheating in order to help themselves.