IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v101y2011i2p1041-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 X 2 Games: Reply

Author

Listed:
  • Reinhard Selten
  • Thorsten Chmura
  • Sebastian J. Goerg

Abstract

This is a reply to "Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 X 2 Games: Comment" by Brunner, Camerer, and Goeree which corrects some computational errors in Selten and Chmura (2008) and extends the comparison of five stationary concepts to data from previous experimental studies. We critically discuss their new findings and relate them to the data of Selten and Chmura (2008). We conclude that the parametric concepts of action-sampling equilibrium and payoff-sampling equilibrium perform better than quantal response equilibrium, and that the non-parametric concept of impulse-balance equilibrium performs at least as well as quantal response equilibrium. (JEL C70)

Suggested Citation

  • Reinhard Selten & Thorsten Chmura & Sebastian J. Goerg, 2011. "Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 X 2 Games: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 1041-1044, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:2:p:1041-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.2.1041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reinhard Selten & Klaus Abbink & Ricarda Cox, 2005. "Learning Direction Theory and the Winner’s Curse," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 5-20, April.
    2. Reinhard Selten & Klaus Abbink & Ricarda Cox, 2005. "Learning Direction Theory and the Winner’s Curse," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 5-20, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thorsten Chmura & Werner Güth, 2011. "The Minority of Three-Game: An Experimental and Theoretical Analysis," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(3), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Thomas Neumann & Bodo Vogt, 2014. "Learning in Networks—An Experimental Study Using Stationary Concepts," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(3), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Chmura, Thorsten & Goerg, Sebastian J. & Selten, Reinhard, 2012. "Learning in experimental 2×2 games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 44-73.
    4. Daniele Nosenzo & Theo Offerman & Martin Sefton & Ailko van der Veen, 2010. "Inducing Good Behavior: Bonuses versus Fines in Inspection Games," Discussion Papers 2010-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Benndorf, Volker & Martínez-Martínez, Ismael, 2017. "Perturbed best response dynamics in a hawk–dove game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 61-64.
    6. V. P. Crawford., 2014. "Boundedly Rational versus Optimization-Based Models of Strategic Thinking and Learning in Games," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    7. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten., 2014. "Bounded-Rationality Models: Tasks to Become Intellectually Competitive," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    8. Chloé Coq & Henrik Orzen & Sebastian Schwenen, 2017. "Pricing and capacity provision in electricity markets: an experimental study," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 123-158, April.
    9. Philipp Külpmann & Christoph Kuzmics, 2019. "On the Predictive Power of Theories of One-Shot Play," Graz Economics Papers 2019-09, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    10. Alan Kirman & François Laisney & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2018. "Exploration vs Exploitation, Impulse Balance Equilibrium and a specification test for the El Farol bar problem," School of Economics Working Papers 2018-11, University of Adelaide, School of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:2:p:1041-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael P. Albert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.