META GAME THEORETIC ANALYSIS OF STANDARD “REAL WORLD”GAME THEORETIC PROBLEMS

Authors

  • Swati Singh

Keywords:

meta game theory, conflict analysis, game of pure coordination

Abstract

Meta game theory is a non-quantitative reconstruction of mathematical game theory. This paper attempts to use meta game theory for conflict analysis. A conflict is a situation where parties with opposing goals affect one another. A person without prerequisite knowledge about meta game analysis or game theory can implement this method. The paper accomplishes a metagame analysis of various standard game theoretic problems. The study first models the conflict, then a tableau is set up. 

References

Alamar, B. C. (2006). The passing premium puzzle. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 2(4).

Ángel, G. M., Evangelos, T., & Alberto, L. (2006). Defensive systems in basketball ball possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 6(1), 98–107.

Araujo, F. C., & Leoneti, A. B. (2018). GAME THEORY AND 2x2 STRATEGIC GAMES APPLIED FOR MODELING OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY DECISION-MAKING PROBLEMS. Pesquisa Operacional, 38, 479–497.

Atsa’am, D. D., & Wario, R. (2021). Adopting the Divide-and-Conquer Strategy for Use of Terrorists in Counterterrorism Through the Stag Hunt Game-Theoretic Environment. Journal of Applied Security Research, 1–9.

Auer, B. R., & Hiller, T. (2015). On the evaluation of soccer players: A comparison of a new game-theoretical approach to classic performance measures. Applied Economics Letters, 22(14), 1100–1107.

Avelino, P., Bazeia, D., Losano, L., Menezes, J., De Oliveira, B., & Santos, M. (2018). How directional mobility affects coexistence in rock-paper-scissors models. Physical Review E, 97(3), 032415.

Avelino, P., de Oliveira, B., & Trintin, R. (2019). Predominance of the weakest species in Lotka-Volterra and May-Leonard formulations of the rock-paper-scissors model. Physical Review E, 100(4), 042209.

Aylott, M., & Aylott, N. (2007). A meeting of social science and football: Measuring the effects of three points for a win. Sport in Society, 10(2), 205–222.

Banks, J. S., & Calvert, R. L. (1992). A battle-of-the-sexes game with incomplete information. Games and Economic Behavior, 4(3), 347–372.

Belloc, M., Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., & D’Alessandro, S. (2019). Intuition and deliberation in the stag hunt game. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–7.

Boronico, J. S., & Newbert, S. L. (1999). Play calling strategy in American football: A game-theoretic stochastic dynamic programming approach. Journal of Sport Management, 13(2), 103–113.

Boronico, J. S., & Newbert, S. L. (2001). An empirically driven mathematical modelling analysis for play calling strategy in American football. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(1), 21–38.

Boudreau, J. W., Rentschler, L., & Sanders, S. (2019). Stag hunt contests and alliance formation. Public Choice, 179(3), 267–285.

Brams, S. J., & Ismail, M. S. (2018). Making the rules of sports fairer. SIAM Review, 60(1), 181–202.

Cao, Z., & Yang, X. (2014). The fashion game: Network extension of matching pennies. Theoretical Computer Science, 540, 169–181.

Capraro, V., Rodriguez-Lara, I., & Ruiz-Martos, M. J. (2020). Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt Game. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 86, 101535.

Carter, V., & Machol, R. E. (1978). Note—Optimal Strategies on Fourth Down. Management Science, 24(16), 1758–1762.

Chiappori, P.-A., Levitt, S., & Groseclose, T. (2002). Testing mixed-strategy equilibria when players are heterogeneous: The case of penalty kicks in soccer. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1138–1151.

Published

2022-02-26