Talk:Extensive-form game

message: Game tree seems to be about extensive form games, except it primarily deals with computer science problems.  I think it would be best to merge that content here.  Barring that, I think that Game tree should be moved to a different name, and cross links should be included here.  What do folks think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Pete.Hurd 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now leaning towards not merging, but making game tree more explicitly CompSsi rather than Game theory.  The backwards induction solution section in game tree seems to indicate that empty threats and information sets just aren't an issue in solving game trees.  If that's the case then I don't think merging is in order. Pete.Hurd 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, how long has this merge request been pending? I ask because this article has been sitting on hold on the GA nom page for a long, long time.... Homestarmy 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The article itself is interesting, my reasons for failing this article are purely formating and referencing.
** The lead needs to edited to WP:Lead format with the list moved into the article suggest an introduction section to cover the basic theory.
** References need to follow WP:Cite, include ISBN numbers for books
** The formula had originating Author(s) this need to be Cited
Gnangarra 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  failed GA - reasons 

message: According to Kuhn's 2003 book (), which I had hoped to use to fix that section:
And he only treats matrix games over [0, 1], but even there you need to be careful and consider Borel sets etc. So, can someone let me know what a good RS for games of type "(2) and not (1)", which that troubled section describes? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the infintie action space section? 

message: The following was posted on talk:axiom of determinacy:
:By the way, can someone (meaning Trovatore almost surely) look at the infinite action spaces section of Extensive-form game (the game described here is of that kind). Herrlich says that omega-long games and games where the action sets have omega cardinality are "complementary", but I'm not sure what that entails for the determinatness of perfect games of finite length but with infinite action spaces of various cardinalities. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to help request 

message: This article should probably be organized along the lines of Formal grammar: some introductory examples, the formal definition, and then details on the equilibria etc for each sub-type. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Org note 

message: It is stated that "if both types play U, player 2 again forms the belief that he is at either node with probability 1/2. In this case player 2 plays D', but then type 1 prefers to play D".
While it makes sense why type 2 would always play U (as is stated elsewhere in the article), it needs to be clarified why "type 1 prefers to play D" because:
(1) if player 2 always plays D' (as is stated) when type 1 plays U then player 1 gets +2; 
(2) if, as suggested is "preferred", type 1 plays D then player 1 gets +1 (because player 2 will play U' to get +2 with the supposed belief that player 1 only plays D with type 1).
Note that the "non-optimal" action of type 1 playing U produced a greater reward than the stated "preferred" action of playing D.
It seems that the answer would be correct if e.g. t1/D/U' and t1/D/D' first player rewards were swapped, yet note that "if nature selects t1 as player 1's type, the game played will be like the very first game described".
Also it is stated that "player 2 ... randomising if he observes U" (under the assumption that U is always and exclusively played in type 2), presumably because either actions produce the same reward (specifically +1). Here "randomizing" is probably meant as with equal probability. However, given that both actions produce the same outcome, any probability assignment is "optimal", and not just the equal probability one (as is implied in the article).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.29.158 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of incomplete information sample problem solution 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Gioco in forma estesa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Gioco in forma estesa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gioco in forma estesa" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]