Games are everywhere: Drivers maneuvering in heavy traffic are playing a driving game. Bargain hunters bidding on eBay are playing an auctioning game. The supermarket's price for corn flakes is decided by playing an economic game. This Very Short Introduction offers a succinct tour of the fascinating world of game theory, a ground-breaking field that analyzes how to play g Games are everywhere: Drivers maneuvering in heavy traffic are playing a driving game.
Bargain hunters bidding on eBay are playing an auctioning game. The supermarket's price for corn flakes is decided by playing an economic game. This Very Short Introduction offers a succinct tour of the fascinating world of game theory, a ground-breaking field that analyzes how to play games in a rational way. Ken Binmore, a renowned game theorist, explains the theory in a way that is both entertaining and non-mathematical yet also deeply insightful, revealing how game theory can shed light on everything from social gatherings, to ethical decision-making, to successful card-playing strategies, to calculating the sex ratio among bees.
With mini-biographies of many fascinating, and occasionally eccentric, founders of the subject-including John Nash, subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind-this book offers a concise overview of a cutting-edge field that has seen spectacular successes in evolutionary biology and economics, and is beginning to revolutionize other disciplines from psychology to political science. About the Series: Oxford's Very Short Introductions offers concise and original introductions to a wide range of subjects-from Islam to Sociology, Politics to Classics, and Literary Theory to History. Not simply a textbook of definitions, each volume provides trenchant and provocative-yet always balanced and complete-discussions of the central issues in a given topic. Every Very Short Introduction gives a readable evolution of the subject in question, demonstrating how it has developed and influenced society. Whatever the area of study, whatever the topic that fascinates the reader, the series has a handy and affordable guide that will likely prove indispensable. '.game theory isn't able to solve all the word's problems, because it only works when people play games rationally.'
-Ken Bilmore, Game Theory, A Very Short Introduction Ken Binmore's Very Short Introduction (VSI #173) to Game Theory is my second selection of Oxford's huge, gigantic VSI series (quickly approaching 500 books). It was probably closer to 3.5 stars, but mainly because of the structural problems with surveying Game Theory in less than 200 pages. At less than 200 pages Binmore is abl '.game theory isn't able to solve all the word's problems, because it only works when people play games rationally.' -Ken Bilmore, Game Theory, A Very Short Introduction Ken Binmore's Very Short Introduction (VSI #173) to Game Theory is my second selection of Oxford's huge, gigantic VSI series (quickly approaching 500 books).
It was probably closer to 3.5 stars, but mainly because of the structural problems with surveying Game Theory in less than 200 pages. At less than 200 pages Binmore is able to break down Game Theory into chapters on chance, time, conventions, reciprocity, information, auctions, evolutionary biology, bargaining and coalitions, puzzles and paradoxes. For the beginner, the problem with this book will be how quickly the book expects the reader to pick up on some of the accepted standards of game theory thinking and explanations (boxes, game trees, subgames, etc). For the non-beginner, the book sometimes skims over areas that the reader (or perhaps, just this reader) might want to wade deeper (more maths) into. This is the inherent tension in all the VSI.
It is the dance, the game of the series. You have to be able to present your information in a package designed to be broad in scope, but small in application. Binmore does a good job, however. I was very satisfied with the progression of the book, and loved getting a bit more info on such game theory notables as Nash, Von Neumann, etc. I was also excited by the whole chapter devoted to game theory and evolutionary biology. It took me back to reading Robert Wright's and, and. This book also was good in giving me a couple more GT books to read in the future on cooperation.
I will admit my head hurts after this book and no its not a bad thing. I will start though by saying that to me mathematics is about numbers and not concepts - my line of work and experience makes me see numbers not symbols or concepts - so I will admit that I have had to work at this book. But why read something that is hard work - well for me the concept is fascinating - game theory has been quoted, mis-interpreted and yes even abused so many times it was about time to see what it was all abou I will admit my head hurts after this book and no its not a bad thing. I will start though by saying that to me mathematics is about numbers and not concepts - my line of work and experience makes me see numbers not symbols or concepts - so I will admit that I have had to work at this book. But why read something that is hard work - well for me the concept is fascinating - game theory has been quoted, mis-interpreted and yes even abused so many times it was about time to see what it was all about - and the 'Very short introduction' book is a great way of achieving that without reducing me to a gibbering wreck. The book tires to explain the various concepts that go to make up Game Theory without overloading the reader with loads of mathematics - wherever possible illustrations are used giving real life examples to an idea or concept.
The book also gives a little bit of history of where the various theories came from both good and bad and shows a little illumination of where the theories have been used. This has not been an easy book to read- but for me (who is notorious for asking too many questions at the best of times) it helps answer the question about why Game Theory is seen as being so important and how what can often be seen as a high concept actually does have relevance (and even power) in our society today. This book is not for everyone and I will admit I will have to return to it to understand it more in the future but for maths I did find this accessible and interesting, I just need to stop now as my brain is full. I was disappointed by this introduction. The author writes with considerable style and covers some aspects well, but I think that the core principles of game theory are not explained at all well and the examples and diagrams are explained particularly poorly.
Not surprisingly, the book is best when covering the author's speciality - auctions. I also feel that the author devotes too much time to arguing against the straw man of ethical objections to game theory analyses - these could be dealt wit I was disappointed by this introduction. The author writes with considerable style and covers some aspects well, but I think that the core principles of game theory are not explained at all well and the examples and diagrams are explained particularly poorly. Not surprisingly, the book is best when covering the author's speciality - auctions. I also feel that the author devotes too much time to arguing against the straw man of ethical objections to game theory analyses - these could be dealt with ( as he does) just once and not bothered with over and over again in different parts of the book.
A mediocre introduction to a very interesting subject. The book doesn't really flow - just gives example games without connecting the subjects well. The big problem i had with the book is that the author is way too defensive about negative perceptions of game theory, and thus wastes a lot of space trying to remedy these misconceptions.
Also, without math it was hard for me to internalize some of the game theoretical results. Some of the interesting points:. discussion of auction mechanisms, with a mediocre introduction to a very interesting subject. The book doesn't really flow - just gives example games without connecting the subjects well. The big problem i had with the book is that the author is way too defensive about negative perceptions of game theory, and thus wastes a lot of space trying to remedy these misconceptions.
Also, without math it was hard for me to internalize some of the game theoretical results. Some of the interesting points:.
discussion of auction mechanisms, with examples of US and British Telecom auctions - I wish the author went into more detail on these instead of just referencing them. a discussion of fallacies presented as paradoxes, which are attributed to game theory, in particular those arising from the prisoner's dilemma game. The evolutionary interpretation makes a lot of sense. 'signalling' as a way of communicating your 'type' to the other player in order to push them towards a more profitable equilibrium. evolutionarily stable strategies - how equilibria evolve within species. After enjoying a couple of Very Short Introduction (VSI) books, I was hoping to enjoy this. However, it was disappointing (I gave up half way) because it kept dropping terms without introduction (e.g., sub-game).
While I agree it is hard to be thorough in short introductory books, I think using terms without introducing them by examples or definition (not for short introductory books) is worst kind of mistake in books. Now, to be fair, I might have enjoyed other VSI books as I was familiar with t After enjoying a couple of Very Short Introduction (VSI) books, I was hoping to enjoy this. However, it was disappointing (I gave up half way) because it kept dropping terms without introduction (e.g., sub-game). While I agree it is hard to be thorough in short introductory books, I think using terms without introducing them by examples or definition (not for short introductory books) is worst kind of mistake in books.
Now, to be fair, I might have enjoyed other VSI books as I was familiar with terms used in them as opposed to this book; however, I doubt this was the case as the book does not state any prerequisite knowledge to grok its content. While short, it's also to the point and lives up to it's title. It is a very short introduction to game theory, but it hits the important notes and gives just enough information to whet the whistle and prepare the reader for more complex, detailed books discussing game theory. Such as the rest of Ken Binmore's books.
Think of it not so much as a primer or cliff notes version of Game Theory, but more of a sampler appetizer platter - you get to try a little bit of everything before deciding if y While short, it's also to the point and lives up to it's title. It is a very short introduction to game theory, but it hits the important notes and gives just enough information to whet the whistle and prepare the reader for more complex, detailed books discussing game theory. Such as the rest of Ken Binmore's books. Think of it not so much as a primer or cliff notes version of Game Theory, but more of a sampler appetizer platter - you get to try a little bit of everything before deciding if you want to commit to a larger portion. Game theory factors in to so many things that you don't always immediately see.
I really think that all social scientists need to know about game theory because it has so many implications for so much of their work. This book sells game theory very well and gives many examples of games and their applications. However, most of it I didn't understand without re-reading and parts of it I still don't understand.
I blame this partly on game theory being complex but also on the explanations not really Game theory factors in to so many things that you don't always immediately see. I really think that all social scientists need to know about game theory because it has so many implications for so much of their work. This book sells game theory very well and gives many examples of games and their applications.
However, most of it I didn't understand without re-reading and parts of it I still don't understand. I blame this partly on game theory being complex but also on the explanations not really being outstanding. This book has been a major disappointment, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
The main problem with it is that Ken Bonmore fails to adequately explain most of the basic concepts of game theory, even though the material is relatively simple. Sometimes, it's because of errors (some of the early example grids are wrong, for example, which leads to much unnecessary confusion) but most often it's just a lack of pedagogical talent. Every time I found something hard to grasp, a quick trip to Google This book has been a major disappointment, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The main problem with it is that Ken Bonmore fails to adequately explain most of the basic concepts of game theory, even though the material is relatively simple. Sometimes, it's because of errors (some of the early example grids are wrong, for example, which leads to much unnecessary confusion) but most often it's just a lack of pedagogical talent. Every time I found something hard to grasp, a quick trip to Google or wikipedia would very easily explain what the author couldn't. And even for concepts which I already knew from other fields (the minimax theorem, for example), I found his explanations needlessly confusing.
I read other reviews of readers lamenting that their lack of mathematical background prevented them from understanding this introduction. It is telling because nothing in the material covered necessitates any mathematical notion more complex than basic high school probability (if you can compute the probability or rolling 3 when rolling two dice, you know enough math to understand the material - provided it is explained with more talent than it is here). Ken Binmore enjoys talking about himself and his accomplishments. He tells us again and again that he designed the auction mechanism used to allocate GSM frequencies to telecom companies.
He also cites his own books and articles no less than eight times in the 'further readings' section. It's not all negative, because the author has a good sense of rhythm. He knows when to cut the explanations of concepts with anecdotes concerning the mathematicians who discovered them. The examples he chooses are entertaining. And, more fundamentally, he succeeds in painting a diverse and vivid picture of what the field is about. But this very short introduction will sadly make many readers feel like they're too dumb to understand the basics, whereas plenty of online sources explain them in much clearer ways without sacrificing rigor.
As such, it is impossible to recommend the book. I can't stand this book I hate it I hate it I hate it I love it I hate it. Even though I struggled to turn each page, I'm glad I got an introduction to game theory. So it lives up to its name. But, geez, it seemed SO MUCH tougher than it had to be. I had a question about every three sentences.
It read like a textbook, but occationally, Binmore would drop some strange word or phrase, and he seemed to be breaking the tone.inserting a nonsequiter that didn't ever feel welcome. I was con Blerg. I can't stand this book I hate it I hate it I hate it I love it I hate it. Even though I struggled to turn each page, I'm glad I got an introduction to game theory. So it lives up to its name.
But, geez, it seemed SO MUCH tougher than it had to be. I had a question about every three sentences. It read like a textbook, but occationally, Binmore would drop some strange word or phrase, and he seemed to be breaking the tone.inserting a nonsequiter that didn't ever feel welcome. I was consistantly awkward and klunky and often left large holes in logic and jumps in reasoning. I felt like Binmore was showing off his big telecom auction deal. He flaunted it several times.
He was quite sour on moral philosophy, calling out Kant at least twice. I stopped being super critical of all the little things after the first 20 Pages or so. Akes a mess of it I feel like I went to the internet to clarify some of my questions on Nash and other things.My biggest impediment to comprehending game theory arises out of the compression of information.
The whole idea of game theory is to show potential outcomes based on a simplified choice architecture. I see the value here. However, I feel like using game theory could be coupled with morality, compassion and empathy to create systems that result in the best outcome for all parties involved. But still I feel like Game Theory is very very deconstructive and harmful. My hope is to use Game Theory in the future to observe paradoxes of choice arise. End up harming both parties who are only looking out for themselves I think in abundance of information openness sharing and even the categorical imperative can and will and should help us in the future make better decisions not what we selfishly rely on as our own best interest that is just doesn't seem right something about Game Theory seems to moronic to logical but the logic is difficult is obscured I find economics and logic to be very intuitive and Game Theory.
Trusting that the author indeed knows that which he writes upon. While the sentences and general structure clear and accessible the diagrams and examples were rather wanting. Shall disclose that reading was primarily upon the commuter bus. A different environment with pencil & paper at hand to work out the convoluted examples may have been of benefit. Not enough was done to differentiate between the different game types, or show how they really are similar, explain the language of the payoff Trusting that the author indeed knows that which he writes upon. While the sentences and general structure clear and accessible the diagrams and examples were rather wanting. Shall disclose that reading was primarily upon the commuter bus.
A different environment with pencil & paper at hand to work out the convoluted examples may have been of benefit. Not enough was done to differentiate between the different game types, or show how they really are similar, explain the language of the payoff diagrams, randomly explaining results with, or without math; and others issues. Passion in the writing is clear in the early pages, but sadly drops to a drone. Passion picks up at the journey's end as the author talks about himself, and his work. Also, a typical complaint of pop-sciences texts.
Would trade the frequent walls of text with math, diagrams, or my god. Here comes my rant: Wow! I can't believe I got this far (34% of the book)!
This is one of the most BORING books I have ever read in my life! This was supposed to read like an introduction to the theory (hence the title a VERY SHORT introduction), not an undergrad texbook full of B.O.R.I.N.G examples and explanations! It's ridiculously tedious and managed to get on my nerves! Disable quick launch programs. This is definitely aimed at undergrads majoring in economics, not at the general reader! Full of technical terms - I just g Here comes my rant: Wow! I can't believe I got this far (34% of the book)!
This is one of the most BORING books I have ever read in my life! This was supposed to read like an introduction to the theory (hence the title a VERY SHORT introduction), not an undergrad texbook full of B.O.R.I.N.G examples and explanations! It's ridiculously tedious and managed to get on my nerves!
This is definitely aimed at undergrads majoring in economics, not at the general reader! Full of technical terms - I just got bored with trying to keep track with all those terms - felt like I'm studying for a final exam in game theory or economics! I have read books on far more complex theories in various fields that were much more reader-friendly. You'll get a feeling that you're in a very boring lecture where you have to listen over and over and over and over again to someone talking about statistical probablity in every single example they give.
And the book is just full of them! Just take a look at this ridiculous sentence: 'Evolution doesn't always select subgame-perfect equilibria, but it remains rational for Alice to solve the Ultimatum Minigame by backward induction when the payoffs are determined by the theory of revealed preference' I was introduced to the terms 'subgame-perfect equilibria', 'Ultimatum Minigame', 'backward induction', 'theory of revealed preference' only once and I had to rely on my memory to keep track of all that mess. Felt like I was wasting my memory over nothing. The author also seems to have a problem with Republicans/conservatives/capitalists. I just don't get why he is obsessed with them and has to mention them on every other page?
That was unprofessional and childish. Professor of Economics at UCL, after holding corresponding positions at LSE and the University of Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Onetime Professor of Mathematics at LSE. Author of 77 published papers and 11 books. Research in evolutionary game theory, bargaining theory, experimental economics, political philosophy, mathematics and statistics.
Grants from National Science Foundation (3), ESRC (1), STICER Professor of Economics at UCL, after holding corresponding positions at LSE and the University of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Onetime Professor of Mathematics at LSE.
Author of 77 published papers and 11 books. Research in evolutionary game theory, bargaining theory, experimental economics, political philosophy, mathematics and statistics.
Grants from National Science Foundation (3), ESRC (1), STICERD (2) and others. Chairman of LSE Economics Theory Workshop (10 years), Director of Michigan Economic Laboratory (5 years). Fellow of the Econometric Society and British Academy.
Extensive collaboration with 25 co-authors. Awarded the CBE in the New Years Honours List 2001 largely for his role in designing the UK 3G Spectrum Auction.
What am I talking about? Well continue to read chapter 3 of the book and you will see how Binmore gladly portrays both “common knowledge” and “backward induction” as “useful instruments” when discussing “subgame perfection” and “trembling hand” equilibrium. My critique is that even if these assumptions are “useful,” that is not enough to warrant using them. Assuming that people are green and come from Mars may be very useful when constructing economic models, but what has that got to do with understanding and explaining structures and causal relations in real economies? Comment by — 10 July, 2014.
Game theory has proved very successful in market settings (experiments), where it is principally applied in economics. But Binmore has been a leading critic of those who believe that economics contains a “selfishness axiom” (false) or that rationality implies backward induction (also false).
“To defend backward induction, one needs not only that it is common knowledge among the players that they are all utility maximizers, but that they disregard any evidence to the contrary that they might receive when playing the game.” See Section 5 of. Comment by Justin Dylan— 10 July, 2014.
Complutense University Of Madrid
“It may turn out to be useful – logic was useful in the development of the computer sciences, for example – but it’s not directly practical in the sense of helping you figure out how best to behave tomorrow, say in a debate with friends, or when analysing data that you get as a judge or a citizen or as a scientist.” Uh hang on a minute logic will not help you in a debate? Is this guy serious? Sorry, I don’t buy that at all. Logic is extremely important in debates and people with a poor grasp of logic will tend to be poor debaters. This is a very odd statement.
Comment by — 10 July, 2014. Hi Lars, do your books cover Adam Curtis’s BBC documentary series The Trap?
Episode 1: “F.k You Buddy” (11 March 2007) –snip– In this episode, Curtis examines the rise of game theory during the Cold War and the way in which its mathematical models of human behaviour filtered into economic thought. The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the work of John Nash (the mathematician portrayed in A Beautiful Mind), who believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly. Using this as his first premise, Nash constructed logically consistent and mathematically verifiable models, for which he won theNobel Prize in Economics. He invented system games reflecting his beliefs about human behaviour, including one he called “Fuck Your Buddy” (later published as “So Long Sucker”), in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode’s title is taken. These games were internally coherent and worked correctly as long as the players obeyed the ground rules that they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents,citation needed but when RAND’s analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they instead chose not to betray each other but to cooperate every time. This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the models but instead proved that the secretaries were unfit subjects.
–snip– Episode 2 “The Lonely Robot” –snip– Curtis’s narration concludes with the observation that the game theory/free market model is now undergoing interrogation by economists who suspect a more irrational model of behaviour is appropriate and useful. In fact, in formal experiments the only people who behaved exactly according to the mathematical models created by game theory are economists themselves, and psychopaths. Quotes are from Wikipedia entry for The Trap but were included in longer discussion at Corrente. I’d highlight the ends of both quotes — subjects must be valid psychopaths for games to work, cooperators disqualified. Comment by just me— 10 July, 2014. I like comments. Follow netiquette.
Comments — especially anonymous ones — with pseudo argumentations, abusive language or irrelevant links will not be posted. And please remember — being a full-time professor leaves only very limited time to responding to comments.
I am terrible at drawing. I focused on building my candy website, and now that it is moving along nicely, I am working on building another niche site. Now is the chance to repent and believe in Jesus. If youd like information about the indepth beliefs of the type of Wiccan I am, the link above will suffice. Try to do something like that.
Sometimes we just got to learn life the hard way. So my question is, If Jesus was Jewish why arent all Christians Jewish. (awesome) mickey teorai questions, Family Relationships,Friends how to study better.It also wouldnt be a bad idea to by emanuels for each class(these are basically commercial outlines and they contain practice questions. Com toksee introducing a revolutionary communication widget that will unify audio, video, instant Editio)n and other communication technologies.
Why does Allah swt endorse the judgements of the Prophet pbuh in the above verse and command all muslims to accept his decisions if the only thing we are commanded to accept is the Quran.Jazz changed the way so many people relate to music and broke the mold as far as structure in music goes. 1 John 57 (7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.