Talk:Centipede game

message: The payoffs indicated in the game tree are not correct. In the last round, the payoff to defection should be 4 for player 2, not zero - as currently drawn, SPNE would have player 2 cooperate in this round. A version with correct payoffs can be found e.g. on the Italian Wikipedia - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centipede_game.png - perhaps it is possible to just use that drawing instead?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.153.254 (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this looks wrong. I've swapped the image as suggested. --McGeddon (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Tree is not Correct

message: After deletion of copyvio material, redirect to Centipede (video game).  SWAdair | Talk  11:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Game theory is referring to a different "centipede game", so maybe that's not such a good idea. --rbrwr± 22:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean.  SWAdair | Talk  05:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: After deletion

message: While the unique solution for a game of certain length is obviously to defect on the first go, this is only a solution for a game of certain length - a game of uncertain length works a bit differently. Also, technically, if it works the way it states in this article (pass one coin across the table; if your opponent defects they get two coins and you still get one) then the unique equilibrium is to pass it back and forth infinitely, as you're never losing anything by passing. Only if you get more by defecting at any given point (rather than equal) is it actually at the stated equilibrium. Titanium Dragon 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Equilibrium

message: The introduction states that "The payoffs are arranged so that if one passes the pot to one's opponent and the opponent takes the pot, one receives slightly less than if one had taken the pot", yet the example in the explanation of the rules starts with a pot of 1 and pot of 0. This would iterate to 2 and 1 on the first pass, 3 and 2 on the second pass, and so on - player 1 would never lose money via passing. I reworded the explanation to begin with pots of 2 and 0 (hence, the first player would receive 1 less token than he passed if the second player cashes out), but the graph may be inaccurate. I believe the graph to be beyond my meager means to possibly interpret and rule on. Somebody might want to verify that the graph is still accurate / inaccurate, and fix if necessary. --Action Jackson IV 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing it.  It looks good now. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: Should this article be named 'Implications of the centipede game for game theory'? If not I suggest it could be argued that there should be much more about probability theory attempts at a solution and how the game should be played rather than about silly wrong game theory solutions? crandles 13:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is fine, and I agree that other solutions than SPE could be discussed more.  But be careful that you are discussing the attempts of others (by citing whose attempt, etc) so that you avoid original research.  As for probability theory solutions rather than GT ones, I think that all solutions are GT solutions, just they use different sets of rules and different methodologies (mixed strategies, bounded rationality, or whatever).  I'll have time to add something along these lines myself tomorrow, probably. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: The definition of the problem assumes that gains for the other player have no value for the first player.
This is not true in practice. It would be very difficult to separate these components of social interactions from the game. It is not altruism so much as reinforcement of social harmony, which has direct if hard-to-describe-benefits to the player. Even if you had a situation with an anonymous opponent over e.g. the internet: why are people playing the game at all? If it is to get a high 'score' or large point gain, then the value of playing is directly tied into whether the first player feels they can get a good score. A low score is worthless in a competitive environment, and so strategies which result in low scores are automatically discarded. If this means always losing the pot to an opponent who immediately defects, then the player will feel they have no choice but to stop playing the game, it is just one option in the the 'real world' of more complex choices after all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.192.159 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get why anyone thinks that altruism has anything to do with it. It's self evident that the reason for not defecting on the first round is that the amount you would get is at the seconds smallest on the first round. You're being selfish, thinking ahead to the next round. You also assume the other person is thinking the same way. When you become unsure of this is when you finally take the pot. The fact that only only get slightly less than you would otherwise makes this risk not as great, but it does mount each time.
Sometimes I think game theorists miss the forest for the trees. — trlkly 06:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for empirical results 

message: Perhaps there could be some mention of how in an auction where the player has malicious will against the other bidder, the same sort of situation arises.  By waiting longer, they increase the cost of to their opponed, but by waiting longer, they end up with the inflated cost instead.  In this case, the "cooperation" of the centepede game is equivilent to non-cooperation in this game.
71.161.146.225 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auctions? 

message: The introduction speaks of a slowly increasing pot when the description presents an exponentially increasing pot. --PIerre.Lescanne (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "slowly".--PIerre.Lescanne (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slowly increasing pot