Talk:Matching pennies

message: Since Matching pennies is the same game as Two Finger Morra (with matching one or two fingers rather than matching heads or tails), it would be useful to mention this and include a link to the wikipedia article on Morra  120.156.241.59 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Finger Morra is the same game - link to it? 

message: There's also a coordination game Besen and Farrell called "Battle of the Sexes," with the VHS vs. Beta standard wars as a frequently-cited example. That payoff is shown to the right. 
A lot of this stuff might be better in a separate article or at least its own section. Jokestress (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This not a good idea because matching pennies is not the whole class of discoordination games, and this article doesn't even define the notion. I fixed that redirect to Coordination game#Other games with externalities, but the definition there needs work. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of the sexes/coordination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matching pennies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001133455/http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/Games/MatchingPennies.html to http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Games/Matchingpennies.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see an obvious way to improve the asymmetric game for both players if they communicate, or manage with enough optimistic trials to hit on an improved strategy, at least for long repeated iterations with the same players. Under the payoffs given in this section, if Even consistently chooses "heads" and Odd chooses "heads" one in five times, then Even wins +7-4 = 3 / five turns, while Odd wins +4-1 = 3 / five turns, for an average gain of 1.67 / turn each. These are far higher payoffs than the .6 / 0 average gains for each under the mixed strategies recommended. This is in effect an Adam Smithian kind of trade between partners, exploiting the fact that one of them is more "efficient" at getting ahead than the other, as long as the other is incentivized to cooperate. Of course, there are other patterns which would still bring them both ahead, but with unequal payoffs, e.g., if Odd chooses heads 2/5 times, or 1/6 times, and negotiating between the two as to how to split the "rewards" may be complex. And naturally, if Even choose Heads come what may, Odd could exploit that to get more, so Even would have to punish this behavior (e.g., by playing randomly for a while, then going back to Heads-only for a bit to see if Odd gets the hint and behaves). But I'm not deeply familiar with game theory; is this sort of arrangement and negotiation assumed to be ruled out because it can't be enforced or communicated, or is there some subset of game theory which involves this, etc.? ScottForschler (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination Strategies for Non-Zero Sum Asymmetric Variant