Talk:Centipede game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! |
|
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within game theory. |
 |
The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Kzollman (talk • contribs • email) |
After deletion of copyvio material, redirect to Centipede (video game). SWAdair | Talk 11:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Game theory is referring to a different "centipede game", so maybe that's not such a good idea. --rbrwr± 22:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Equilibrium
While the unique solution for a game of certain length is obviously to defect on the first go, this is only a solution for a game of certain length - a game of uncertain length works a bit differently. Also, technically, if it works the way it states in this article (pass one coin across the table; if your opponent defects they get two coins and you still get one) then the unique equilibrium is to pass it back and forth infinitely, as you're never losing anything by passing. Only if you get more by defecting at any given point (rather than equal) is it actually at the stated equilibrium. Titanium Dragon 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictory
The introduction states that "The payoffs are arranged so that if one passes the pot to one's opponent and the opponent takes the pot, one receives slightly less than if one had taken the pot", yet the example in the explanation of the rules starts with a pot of 1 and pot of 0. This would iterate to 2 and 1 on the first pass, 3 and 2 on the second pass, and so on - player 1 would never lose money via passing. I reworded the explanation to begin with pots of 2 and 0 (hence, the first player would receive 1 less token than he passed if the second player cashes out), but the graph may be inaccurate. I believe the graph to be beyond my meager means to possibly interpret and rule on. Somebody might want to verify that the graph is still accurate / inaccurate, and fix if necessary. --Action Jackson IV 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
