Best replies in a coordination game
game is one function. Everything below came out of it during this
build, at parameters taken from the essays rather than invented for this page — so a figure
here is the same figure a reader meets in an essay, and if the generator changes, this page
changes with it.
With nothing chosen
A population that settles at 2/3
A population that circles its equilibrium for ever
A signal both can see, and neither wants to disobey
Best replies in a game with no pure equilibrium
The value of a 2×3 zero-sum game, named from both sides
What it checks while it draws
Collected by running the family and recording what it asserted, not written here. The count is how many separate times the claim was put to the test while these drawings were made.
- moving participant 1 from state 0 lowers the potential by exactly what they save ×12
- the run from 0.05 has closed on the rest point ×5
- the run from 0.05 has moved away from the rest point ×5
- nobody improves by moving alone out of state 1 ×4
- the column chooser's options names all 2 of them in one to three characters ×2
- the row chooser's options names all 2 of them in one to three characters ×2
- the time drawn is between 2 and 40 ×2
- a caption for the matrix is a short description, or not given ×1
- a caption renames the game only when the placement supplies its own payoffs ×1
- a cell carries both marks exactly when neither chooser can gain by moving alone ×1
- a rational is a whole numerator over a non-zero whole denominator ×1
- a rational is never divided by zero ×1
- a win and a loss are whole numbers between one and four ×1
- above one, investing pays even if the other certainly does not ×1
- all the traffic arrives at T ×1
- all the traffic leaves S after the link is added ×1
- all the traffic leaves S before the link is added ×1
- and a move that does not improve raises it by exactly what it costs ×1
- and above it, keeping it does ×1
- and at that belief the two actions are worth exactly the same ×1
- and below nothing, staying out pays even if the other certainly invests ×1
- and it is a region rather than a segment ×1
- and none pays the column chooser less ×1
- and so is the closed form for breaking it ×1
- and the bracket has closed to a small fraction of what it started at ×1
- and the optimistic one never falls ×1
- and the two never cross ×1
- and when a win and a loss are equal no invader does worse there than the centre does ×1
- at least one column holds the row chooser exactly to the value ×1
- at least one order of elimination was run ×1
- at least one state has no improving move, so an equilibrium exists ×1
- at the centre every pure strategy earns the same, so a third each is an equilibrium ×1
- at the critical discount factor the two streams are worth exactly the same ×1
- at the cutoff a chooser believes the other is above it with probability exactly a half ×1
- at the mixed equilibrium the leader earns the same from either row ×1
- at the rest point both strategies earn the same, so it is the mixed equilibrium ×1
- at the symmetric cutoff the other is believed above it with probability exactly a half ×1
- below it, breaking the agreement pays more ×1
- between four and forty rounds are drawn ×1
- between one and four starting mixtures, each three positive shares adding to one ×1
- between one and six starting shares, each strictly between nought and one ×1
- between two and four participants ×1
- both of them sit on the diagonal, which is what makes the two tie-breakers comparable ×1
- committing is worth at least as much as every equilibrium of the simultaneous game ×1
- each step moves the share the way the flow points ×1
- every cell of the matrix was put to both tests ×1
- every distribution on the lattice was tested ×1
- every order of elimination reaches the same surviving set ×1
- every payoff is a whole number no larger than 20 in size ×1
- every traveller is strictly slower after the zero-cost link is added ×1
- in a zero-sum game committing is worth exactly the value, and nothing more ×1
- in this game committing is worth strictly more than any equilibrium ×1
- no commitment on a lattice of 121 does better than the best candidate ×1
- no equilibrium pays the row chooser less than the minmax ×1
- no mixing weight on the sweep guarantees the row chooser more than the peak ×1
- no mixture of the punisher's holds the other below the minmax ×1
- no mixture on the lattice holds the row chooser below the value ×1
- no route is cheaper than the one everybody is on, so the flow after is an equilibrium ×1
- no split of the traffic on the lattice costs less in total than the computed optimum ×1
- nothing an equilibrium of the stage game pays is outside what repetition sustains ×1
- some pair of columns achieves the column chooser's best mixture ×1
- the agreement is worth more than the punishment and less than breaking it ×1
- the best correlated equilibrium is at least as good as the best pure one ×1
- the best use of the added link is somewhere between none of the traffic and all of it ×1
- the bimatrix carries two payoffs in every cell ×1
- the bimatrix drawn by the payoff mode is one of coordination, none, dominant, three ×1
- the bimatrix has between 2 and 4 columns ×1
- the bimatrix has between 2 and 4 rows ×1
- the bimatrix is rectangular — every row offers the same columns ×1
- the centre resists every invader exactly when a win is worth more than a loss ×1
- the closed form for keeping the agreement is the limit of its own terms ×1
- the closed form for the least possible total agrees with pricing its own flow edge by edge ×1
- the column chooser's mixture holds the row chooser to at most the value against every row ×1
- the computed optimum is itself a point of the lattice ×1
- the correlated mode draws a two-by-two game ×1
- the cost of a fixed-cost link is a whole number between 1 and 400 ×1
- the cost per unit of flow on a congestible link is a whole number between 1 and 10 ×1
- the critical discount factor is a real fraction of the way between nothing and certainty ×1
- the crossing sits strictly inside the unit interval ×1
- the drawn distribution is a correlated equilibrium ×1
- the drawn distribution is whole numerators ×1
- the drawn distribution sums to one ×1
- the equilibrium costs strictly more in total than the optimum ×1
- the exact arithmetic stays inside the safe integer range ×1
- the exact value and its decimal recomputation agree ×1
- the first option is the better reply above the crossing and the worse below it ×1
- the first resource never gets cheaper as more use it ×1
- the first resource prices every load it can carry, as whole numbers no larger than forty ×1
- the fixed-cost link is cheap enough that the old routes beat the new one ×1
- the fixed-cost link is dear enough that the added link is taken by everybody ×1
- the four payoff pairs are not all on one line ×1
- the game drawn has exactly two pure equilibria ×1
- the game the commitment mode draws is one of chicken, stag, battle, stengel, pennies ×1
- the game the correlated mode draws is one of chicken, stag, battle ×1
- the game the replicator mode draws is one of hawk, stag ×1
- the game the selection mode draws is one of chicken, stag, battle ×1
- the lattice contains at least one correlated equilibrium ×1
- the lattice of distributions has a denominator between 4 and 24 ×1
- the mixed rest point attracts exactly when no invading mixture can do as well against it as it does against itself ×1
- the mode of the game family is one of payoff, mixed, dominance, network, correlated, potential, select, replicator, cycle, commit, folk, discount, global, iterate ×1
- the payoff gap is not constant, so the two strategies can tie at most once ×1
- the pessimistic cutoff never rises ×1
- the product of the shares grows at every sampled time ×1
- the product of the shares shrinks at every sampled time ×1
- the pure equilibrium AA is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the pure equilibrium BB is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the pure equilibrium CD is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the pure equilibrium DC is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the pure equilibrium HH is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the pure equilibrium SS is a correlated equilibrium too ×1
- the ratio of the equilibrium's total to the least possible total is exact ×1
- the reading is off by between two and forty hundredths ×1
- the region above both minmax values has an interior ×1
- the row chooser's maximin and the column chooser's minimax are the same number ×1
- the row chooser's mixture is worth at least the value against every single column ×1
- the second never gets cheaper as more use it ×1
- the second prices every load it can carry, as whole numbers no larger than forty ×1
- the selection mode draws a two-by-two game ×1
- the shares still add to one at the end of the run, so the integration stayed on the triangle ×1
- the simultaneous game has an equilibrium to compare against ×1
- the stage game carries two payoffs in every cell ×1
- the stage game has between 2 and 4 columns ×1
- the stage game has between 2 and 4 rows ×1
- the stage game is rectangular — every row offers the same columns ×1
- the stage game the discount mode repeats is one of prisoner, stag, chicken ×1
- the stage game the folk-theorem mode repeats is one of prisoner, stag, chicken ×1
- the state of least potential is one of them ×1
- the surviving column is a best reply to the surviving row ×1
- the surviving row is a best reply to the surviving column ×1
- the tie falls strictly inside the population, so there is a mixed rest point ×1
- the traffic entering the network is a whole number between 3 and 40 ×1
- the two lines are not parallel, or there is no crossing to draw ×1
- the two lines meet at the mixed equilibrium ×1
- the two routes cost the same before the link is added, so nobody moves ×1
- the two sequences bracket that half at every stage, this one included ×1
- the zero-sum matrix has between 2 and 4 columns ×1
- the zero-sum matrix has exactly two rows — the mixing probability is one number ×1
- the zero-sum matrix is rectangular — every row offers the same columns ×1
- what arrives at A leaves A ×1
- what arrives at B leaves B ×1
- with a win worth a loss the product of the shares is conserved along the orbit ×1
- with two columns ×1
Where it is called
Every figure on this list is drawn by the same rule, so a change to the rule changes all of them at once. That is why the list is published.
A mixture that is a population
A mixed equilibrium between two choosers is a knife-edge nobody has a reason to stand on. Read the same mixture as a population whose shares grow with how well they do, and it becomes a point every population is carried to — or one every population circles for ever without arriving.
AppliedA signal both can see
Two choosers who randomise privately can reach a set of outcomes that is smaller, and worse, than the set they reach when a device draws one cell and whispers each of them their half of it. Nothing is enforced and nobody is bound, and the arrangement is stable anyway.
AppliedPatience instead of a contract
Commitment had to assume an announcement binds. Play the same game again tomorrow and the assumption is unnecessary — the future does the binding. What it costs is that nearly every outcome becomes an equilibrium, so a theory that could not choose between two now cannot choose between infinitely many.
AppliedThe landscape nobody is looking at
Letting participants move one at a time to whatever is currently better can cycle forever, and on a network of congestible roads it cannot. The reason is a single number attached to each state that falls by exactly what the mover saves.
AppliedThe reading that is almost right
Every account of simultaneous choice so far has assumed the payoffs are known to both choosers and known to be known. Replace that with each chooser seeing a private reading off by a little, and a band of equilibria closes to a single point — so the assumption nobody states decides the answer.
AppliedThe road that makes everyone later
An equilibrium is a state nobody can improve alone, which is a much weaker thing than a state anybody would choose. Adding a link that costs nothing to use makes every traveller in this network strictly slower, and the arithmetic says by exactly how much.
AppliedThe value from both sides
Two choosers move at the same instant, and each asks the cautious question — how much can be guaranteed, whatever the other does. With pure choices the two answers are usually different numbers; allow a probability and they are forced to be the same one.
AppliedTwo equilibria and no way to choose
A game can have two states nobody wants to leave, one paying more than the other, and the definition of an equilibrium has nothing to say about which happens. The two standard tie-breakers disagree, and the one that wins is usually the worse.
AppliedWorth more for being seen first
Moving first sounds like a disadvantage, since the other side gets to see the move and answer it. When the move is a mixture that is announced and believed, it is never a disadvantage, it is worth exactly nothing in a game of pure conflict, and in other games it is worth more than any equilibrium — sometimes by announcing an action that would never be played in secret.