单次打法治疗理论比较

Philipp Külpmann, Christoph Kuzmics
{"title":"单次打法治疗理论比较","authors":"Philipp Külpmann, Christoph Kuzmics","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3441675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We collect data of one-shot play for a representative selection of two by two games with unique and completely mixed strategy predictions, to compare the predictive power of theories of one-shot play ``out of treatment:'' competing theories are calibrated with pre-existing data using different games and subjects. We find that all theories, except Nash equilibrium, have predictive power; no theory is uniformly best; and taking into account risk aversion significantly improves predictive power. Finally, Nash equilibrium with risk aversion is among the best predictors of play, except for one player position in games of a matching pennies variety.","PeriodicalId":11800,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Stock Market Risk (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Theories of One-Shot Play Out of Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Külpmann, Christoph Kuzmics\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3441675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We collect data of one-shot play for a representative selection of two by two games with unique and completely mixed strategy predictions, to compare the predictive power of theories of one-shot play ``out of treatment:'' competing theories are calibrated with pre-existing data using different games and subjects. We find that all theories, except Nash equilibrium, have predictive power; no theory is uniformly best; and taking into account risk aversion significantly improves predictive power. Finally, Nash equilibrium with risk aversion is among the best predictors of play, except for one player position in games of a matching pennies variety.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Stock Market Risk (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Stock Market Risk (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441675\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Stock Market Risk (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

我们收集了具有独特和完全混合策略预测的2 × 2游戏的代表性选择的一次性游戏数据,以比较一次性游戏理论的预测能力:“竞争理论使用不同游戏和主题的预先存在数据进行校准。”我们发现,除了纳什均衡,所有理论都有预测能力;没有理论总是最好的;将风险厌恶考虑在内,可以显著提高预测能力。最后,带有风险厌恶的纳什均衡是最好的预测因素之一,除了在匹配硬币的游戏中有一个玩家的位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Theories of One-Shot Play Out of Treatment
We collect data of one-shot play for a representative selection of two by two games with unique and completely mixed strategy predictions, to compare the predictive power of theories of one-shot play ``out of treatment:'' competing theories are calibrated with pre-existing data using different games and subjects. We find that all theories, except Nash equilibrium, have predictive power; no theory is uniformly best; and taking into account risk aversion significantly improves predictive power. Finally, Nash equilibrium with risk aversion is among the best predictors of play, except for one player position in games of a matching pennies variety.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信