Game Theory 101 (#17): Backward Induction

[@WingChung93]

You are literally helping me pass uni thanks!

[@CrazyLikeChris]

Did you pass?

[@nag0074]

did you?

[@PunmasterSTP]

Yeah, did you pass? Also, how did the rest of uni go?

[@ifwecouldvote]

Shame your fees didn't get you what you needed. Typical.

[@LeCassiopeia]

Hey did you pass uni? :)

[@amandam.2430]

I understood in a week more than I did in the whole semester! Thank you ☺

[@SagarBhatt7]

I am gonna be able to take today's paper because of this course!! thanks a lot! More power and love to you!!

[@omanjabbar200]

Are you studying Economics or Computer Science?

[@PunmasterSTP]

How'd the paper go?

[@01Versatran]

Would be easier to understand if the states were "A" and "B" rather than "1" and "2"

[@PunmasterSTP]

Backward induction? More like "Back ignorance, because there's knowledge introduction." Thanks again so much for making and sharing these videos (and textbook) to help educate us!

[@Gametheory101]

All of your comments are hilarious!

[@PunmasterSTP]

@@Gametheory101 I'm glad you find them that way. I try to comment on every video I watch in order to drive up engagement. However, it's also fun to leave really lame puns and see who responds and with what comments. I'm glad I could provide some humor which hopefully served as a very small, humble repayment for all of the knowledge that you have shared.

[@MrLogiu]

You are a gentleman sir.

[@BistDuFalkoholiker]

Thanks for the clear and calm explanation! I am just wondering, what the initial, possible strategies of both State 1 and 2 could be?! So I assume s1={ (Accept), (Threaten, War), (Threaten, give up)} s2={ (Escalate), (Concede) } But I feel like there is something missing....could anyone help?🙃

[@jas6238]

I like this video! your explanation is really detailed and clear!

[@ravingswe]

very helpful, thank you!

[@TheCharlielennon]

This is great, cheers.

[@tsp8855]

very well explained

[@pietervanrossum7820]

you are a genius, thank you

[@floh223]

Great videos,cheers mate!

[@joannemasgnaux2023]

Thank you!!!

[@Mariana-shiroh]

Very helpful thank you

[@omrimizrahi4530]

Thanks for the video william ! However, the scenario is very complicated to understand. Maybe the unusual structure of it got me confused. But I wish it was easier to understand :/

[@manasareddy3640]

YOU ARE AMAZINGGGGGG ❤️😭

[@SandyOliveros]

Thank you!

[@liamroberts2482]

Is there a depiction of this game in normal form anywhere?

[@xmajx29]

You said that state 1 would accept based off what you showed, so I don't get why war was added in the bracket. What do you mean "if he were to ever be in this situation he would declare war" if he already accepted? Thanks

[@Gametheory101]

+Marissa J It's counterfactual thinking about what WOULD happen if had threatened instead of accepting at the start. This information is important because the quality of the outcome where he would declare war in the future determines whether he should threaten or accept at the start.

[@last_theorem]

War is always not the solution , now can you explain why Russia went for war? 🤔

[@210nitrous]

so ... open and calibrate

[@masego3152]

good example! but please use simpler scenarios next time!

[@omrimizrahi4530]

totally agree.

[@PunmasterSTP]

I definitely think it's confusing seeing it for the first time. However, I think having three states (not counting the final outcomes) is on the simpler side, all things considered. And having fewer states might make it more difficult to demonstrate the backward induction.

[@mmarcus897]

Why is a state a "she"?

[@PunmasterSTP]

I think he was using "she" to refer to the second player, although I also think that he may have slipped up and referred to some of the states as the player whose decision would be made next.

[@Borzacchinni]

"she", a bit demonstrative

[@PunmasterSTP]

I actually like that he uses different pronouns, and I remember he discussed that using them makes it more clear to which player he is referring. But sometimes it does catch me a bit off guard. 😀