<p>Why don't people in the play want to change their strategies when the game is equilibrium? Because the payoff of the current strategy is not less than the payoff (benefit) of changing the strategy, that is, the opportunity cost of the current strategy. This means that the ratio of the payoff of current strategy to its opportunity cost is not greater than 1. This ratio is the game efficiency, and if the game efficiency equal to 1,it will be the Nash equilibrium, otherwise will be dominant strategy equilibrium. In the Vickery auction, all bidders' bids are equal to their valuation, i.e., the auction efficiency is 1, which is the Nash equilibrium.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-03T07:54:04.870Z
What is a "balanced" game? What is the "benefit" of a strategy? Strategies aren't numbers and can't be divided, so what is the "ratio" of a strategy to its opportunity cost? If the "game efficiency" is a ratio (which is a number), then, if it equals $1$, how can it be a Nash equilibrium (which is a strategy profile)? What is the "upper policy equilibrium"?
VARulle
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-03T13:19:42.400Z
"*if the game efficiency equal to 1,it will be the Nash equilibrium, otherwise will be dominant strategy equilibrium*" --- Are you suggesting that dominant strategy equilibrium is not a Nash equilibrium? If so, you should review the basics of game theory. Similarly, truthful bidding in Vickery auction is not only a NE but also a (weakly) dominant strategy equilibrium.
Herr K.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-03T13:28:39.663Z
What's the purpose of introducing the concept of game efficiency? As you currently define it, the concept is at best a restatement of Nash equilibrium.
Herr K.
<nash-equilibrium><auctions>
Is there a concept of gaming efficiency?
杨先生
# Is there a concept of gaming efficiency?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-03)

Why don't people in the play want to change their strategies when the game is equilibrium? Because the payoff of the current strategy is not less than the payoff (benefit) of changing the strategy, that is, the opportunity cost of the current strategy. This means that the ratio of the payoff of current strategy to its opportunity cost is not greater than 1. This ratio is the game efficiency, and if the game efficiency equal to 1,it will be the Nash equilibrium, otherwise will be dominant strategy equilibrium. In the Vickery auction, all bidders' bids are equal to their valuation, i.e., the auction efficiency is 1, which is the Nash equilibrium.

**Tags:** nash-equilibrium, auctions
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is a "balanced" game? What is the "benefit" of a strategy? Strategies aren't numbers and can't be divided, so what is the "ratio" of a strategy to its opportunity cost? If the "game efficiency" is a ratio (which is a number), then, if it equals $1$, how can it be a Nash equilibrium (which is a strategy profile)? What is the "upper policy equilibrium"?  
> **username_2**: "*if the game efficiency equal to 1,it will be the Nash equilibrium, otherwise will be dominant strategy equilibrium*" --- Are you suggesting that dominant strategy equilibrium is not a Nash equilibrium? If so, you should review the basics of game theory. Similarly, truthful bidding in Vickery auction is not only a NE but also a (weakly) dominant strategy equilibrium.  
> **username_2**: What's the purpose of introducing the concept of game efficiency? As you currently define it, the concept is at best a restatement of Nash equilibrium.  

---

## 0 answers

