Next Issue
Volume 2, September
Previous Issue
Volume 2, March
 
 

Games, Volume 2, Issue 2 (June 2011) – 2 articles , Pages 200-234

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Section
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
379 KiB  
Article
Competing in Several Areas Simultaneously: The Case of Strategic Asset Markets
by Manfred Nermuth
Games 2011, 2(2), 209-234; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2020209 - 12 Apr 2011
Cited by 30 | Viewed by 6159
Abstract
We characterize the structure of Nash equilibria for a certain class of asset market games. In equilibrium, different assets have different returns, and (risk neutral) investors with different wealth hold portfolios with different structures. In equilibrium, an asset’s return is inversely related to [...] Read more.
We characterize the structure of Nash equilibria for a certain class of asset market games. In equilibrium, different assets have different returns, and (risk neutral) investors with different wealth hold portfolios with different structures. In equilibrium, an asset’s return is inversely related to the elasticity of its supply. The larger an investor, the more diversified is his portfolio. Smaller investors do not hold all the assets, but achieve higher percentage returns. More generally, our results can be applied also to other “multi-market games” in which several players compete in several arenas simultaneously, like multi-market Cournot oligopolies, or multiple rent-seeking games. Full article
82 KiB  
Commentary
Market Entry Prediction Competition 2010
by Wasilios Hariskos, Johannes Leder and Kinneret Teodorescu
Games 2011, 2(2), 200-208; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2020200 - 12 Apr 2011
Cited by 29 | Viewed by 7058
Abstract
We submitted three models to the competition which were based on the I-SAW model. The models introduced four new assumptions. In the first model an adjustment process was introduced through which the tendency for exploration was higher at the beginning and decreased over [...] Read more.
We submitted three models to the competition which were based on the I-SAW model. The models introduced four new assumptions. In the first model an adjustment process was introduced through which the tendency for exploration was higher at the beginning and decreased over time in the exploration stage. Another new assumption was that surprise as a factor influencing the weight of a trial in the sampling procedure was added. In the second model we added the possibility of an exclusion of unreliable experiences gained in the early trials of a game and the possibility of a revision of a reasonable alternative which was responsible for a very bad outcome in the previous trial. Three of the four added assumptions were combined in the third model. Because each of our models contains at least two new assumptions, we estimated the relative effect of each assumption on the estimation and prediction scores and carried out a test of robustness. In this way, we were able to clarify the usefulness of each added assumption. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Predicting Behavior in Games)
Previous Issue
Next Issue
Back to TopTop