IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

An experimental study of information and mixed-strategy play in the three-person matching-pennies game

  • Arijit Mukherji

    ()

    (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

  • Kevin A. McCabe

    (Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • David E. Runkle

    ()

    (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

Recent experiments on mixed-strategy play in experimental games reject the hypothesis that subjects play a mixed strategy even when that strategy is the unique Nash equilibrium prediction. However, in a three-person matching-pennies game played with perfect monitoring and complete payoff information, we cannot reject the hypothesis that subjects play the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Given this support for mixed-strategy play, we then consider two qualitatively different learning theories (sophisticated Bayesian and naive Bayesian) which predict that the amount of information given to subjects will determine whether they can learn to play the predicted mixed strategies. We reject the hypothesis that subjects play the symmetric mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium when they do not have complete payoff information. This finding suggests that players did not use sophisticated Bayesian learning to reach the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00199/papers/0015002/00150421.pdf
Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Economic Theory.

Volume (Year): 15 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 421-462

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:421-462
Note: Received: August 9, 1996; revised version: October 21, 1998
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00199/index.htm

Order Information: Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:421-462. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Christopher F Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.