Talk:Strategic dominance

message: For a game theory neophyte like me this article is quite useful. However, I don't know how to read the strategy table in the Nash Eq. section. Without going into all of game theory, is it possible to at least hint at what the 1,1 and 0,0 pairs mean and explain WHY C dominates D, and WHY D,D is a nash eq. Thanks! -- cmh 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion!  I have tried to improve the explanation.  Rather than explaining the table (which occurs in lots of game theory articles), I have added a link to payoff matrix which explains what those numbers represent.  (Although to be honest that page needs work.)  For the time being you might read the first couple of sections in game theory for  quick introduction.  I have also expanded the explanation for why C weakly dominates D and why (D, D) is a Nash equilibrium.  Is this clearer?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks very much! -- cmh 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table in Dominance and Nash Equilibrium

message: The list of external links and references looks pretty comprehensive for an article of this size. However, should the article have in-line citations? Or is the subject pretty much monolithic in terms of what sort of citations are necessary? That is, if I examined each of the seven references, would I find that each of them has includes essentially all of the information presented in this article? (It's a fine article, by the way; applause to the contributors.) — Steve98052 (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  in-line citations 

message: There seem to be some confusing/incorrect descriptions in this article, e.g.
    B dominates A: choosing B always gives as good as or a better outcome than choosing A.
I don't think this is true if, for instance, two strategies always give the same payoff for a player. As far as I can tell, neither of these would dominate, although I haven't had a good look for some good references (http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/DominantStrategy.html doesn't help in this case).
I thought about changing the description to be more accurate, but realised I would just be repeating the definition for weak dominance.
(All strong dominance is weak, and all dominance satisfies the description in the article, but not all strategies that fit the description in the article are dominance i.e. two equal strategies.)
There's a similar problem with
    B is dominated by A: choosing B never gives a better outcome than choosing A, no matter what the other player(s) do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtjh (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a correction to address this issue: . Mathew5000 (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing and incorrect(?) descriptions 

message: Dr. Moldovanu has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Moldovanu has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Alex Gershkov & Benny Moldovanu & Xianwen Shi, 2011. "Bayesian and Dominant Strategy Implementation Revisited," Working Papers tecipa-422, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Moldovanu's comment on this article 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Dominanza (teoria dei giochi) 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)
thread_title:  "Dominanza (teoria dei giochi)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mixed Strategy Dominance Deletion Step-by-Step Example with Detailed Explanation