Talk:Rationalizable strategy

The article showed only two rationalizable pure strategies for the matching pennies game. I changed it to state that all the pure strategies are rationalizable, which I believe to be correct.

I also added a note about the iterated elimination of strategies that are never the best response yielding the set of rationalizable strategies. I found this fact in a set of lecture notes on the web, which I added to the References section. (I felt it needed at least one online reference.)

The articles on dominance and best response should probably have links to each other and to this article. I haven't added these yet.

—Ilmari Karonen 19:24:46, 2005-09-01 (UTC)


 * Yeah, reading over the page again, I should have been more careful to distinguish between rationalizable strategies and rationalizable equilibria. I'm going to add the formal mathematical definition in the next few days, and when I do that I'll try to be sure that distinction is mentioned and consistently employed.  Thanks for the addition!  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 19:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

There is not really a definition in the article. I don't know where to find and include one. --Janlo (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Added a definition. Will try to add more detail soon. I work in game theory. J-weinstein77 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Weak Dominance Deletion Step-by-Step Example
In the example of Weak Dominance Deletion Step-by-Step Example, the strategy U (resp. T) does not weakly dominates T (resp. U) (after the deletion of player one's strategy). To show that the order of deletion has an impact, more strategies should be added (for instance player one could have 1 more strategy). Comment added by QBramas

"Dominanza (teoria dei giochi)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dominanza (teoria dei giochi) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mixed Strategy Dominance Deletion Step-by-Step Example with Detailed Explanation
As part of a University of Michigan Game Theory course, we are helping improve this Game Theory wikipage by adding an example of Mixed Strategy Dominance. In particular, we added an explanation of how to assign tester q values for Player 2's strategy and test them to see if that mixed strategy will dominate the pure strategy. The existing example of Mixed did not offer calculations on how to prove mixed dominance, nor did it end by solving the game. My teammate made the step-by-step IDSDS graph, based off a game out of our textbook, Strategy: An Introduction to Game Theory by Joel Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltedKeyboard (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The calculation in this section appears to me to be incorrect (even after I fixed an apparent repeated error where it said ½X+½Z when it should have said ½Y+½Z). To dominate, the mixed strategy has to be better *no matter what the opponent does*. It is impossible to capture that condition in a single inequality (unless it contains variables representing what the opponent's strategy is). The approach you've used would never incorrectly reject a strategy that was actually dominant, but would incorrectly accept strategies that are not dominant. In particular, by not weighting the opponent's strategies, the calculation implicitly assumes that the opponent plays a mixed strategy of 1/3 U, 1/3 M, and 1/3 D. 50.197.48.113 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)