<p>As Fudenberg and Tirole note, the fact that they assume players move simultaneously does not matter:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This specification is more general than
  it may appear, because the set of feasible actions can be time and history
  dependent, so that games with alternating moves are included.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Moreover, all actions are observable by all players, so the definition would be unchanged by the assumption that moves are alternating.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T19:11:35.640Z
2016-11-15T19:11:35.640Z
Theoretical Economist
<p>Reading the paper <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002205319190155W" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002205319190155W</a>
I came up with the following question. </p>

<p>Given that this paper deals with games in which players move simultaneously, the formula in (1) of Definition 3.1 makes perfectly sense. If someone considers sequential movements of the players, how Definition 3.1 (and hence formula in (1)) would change?</p>

<p>Any good reference about "sequential moving" games?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-10T19:15:18.910Z
The paper seems to be paywalled
Henry
<microeconomics><game-theory><mathematical-economics><reference-request>
Sequential games and Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium
Rnst
# Sequential games and Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-07-11)

Reading the paper <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002205319190155W>
I came up with the following question.

Given that this paper deals with games in which players move simultaneously, the formula in (1) of Definition 3.1 makes perfectly sense. If someone considers sequential movements of the players, how Definition 3.1 (and hence formula in (1)) would change?

Any good reference about "sequential moving" games?

**Tags:** microeconomics, game-theory, mathematical-economics, reference-request
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The paper seems to be paywalled  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-11-15. Score: 2

As Fudenberg and Tirole note, the fact that they assume players move simultaneously does not matter:

> This specification is more general than
> it may appear, because the set of feasible actions can be time and history
> dependent, so that games with alternating moves are included.

Moreover, all actions are observable by all players, so the definition would be unchanged by the assumption that moves are alternating.


---

