IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the order of eliminating dominated strategies


  • Itzhak Gilboa

    (Northwestern University [Evanston])

  • E. Kalai
  • E. Zemel


It is known that different orders of eliminating dominated strategies in n-person games may yield different reduced games. One gives conditions which guarantee that the reduced game is unique. For finite games, the conditions include the well-known cases of strict dominance, and in a slightly weaker form, of regular dominance for zero sum and similar games

Suggested Citation

  • Itzhak Gilboa & E. Kalai & E. Zemel, 1990. "On the order of eliminating dominated strategies," Post-Print hal-00481648, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00481648
    DOI: 10.1016/0167-6377(90)90046-8

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:


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

    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Yi-Chun & Long, Ngo Van & Luo, Xiao, 2007. "Iterated strict dominance in general games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 299-315, November.
    2. Manili, Julien, 2024. "Order independence for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 152-160.
    3. Dufwenberg, Martin & Stegeman, Mark, 1999. "When Order matters for Iterated Strict Dominance," Research Papers in Economics 1999:2, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    4. Hillas, John & Samet, Dov, 2020. "Dominance rationality: A unified approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 189-196.
    5. , & ,, 2013. "The order independence of iterated dominance in extensive games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(1), January.
    6. Itzhak Gilboa, 1989. "A Note on the Consistency of Game Theory," Discussion Papers 847, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Mamoru Kaneko & Shuige Liu, 2015. "Elimination of dominated strategies and inessential players," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 25(1), pages 33-54.
    8. Itzhak Gilboa & Ehud Kalai & Eitan Zemel, 1989. "The Complexity of Eliminating Dominated Strategies," Discussion Papers 853, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Xiao Luo & Xuewen Qian & Chen Qu, 2020. "Iterated elimination procedures," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(2), pages 437-465, September.
    10. Stahl, Dale O., 1995. "Lexicographic rationalizability and iterated admissibility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 155-159, February.
    11. Marx, Leslie M. & Swinkels, Jeroen M., 2000. "Order Independence for Iterated Weak Dominance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 324-329, May.
    12. Michael Trost, 2012. "An Epistemic Rationale for Order-Independence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Joseph Y. Halpern & Rafael Pass, 2018. "Game theory with translucent players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 949-976, September.
    14. Balkenborg, Dieter, 2018. "Rationalizability and logical inference," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 248-257.
    15. Hsieh, Yue-Da & Qian, Xuewen & Qu, Chen, 2023. "Iterated bounded dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    16. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2022. "A Strategic Approach for Promoting Sustainable Crowdshipping in Last-Mile Deliveries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.


    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:hal:journl:hal-00481648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.