Plenty of room for more stories about simple games. There are, I've read, 726 distinct 2*2 games (noting that only the order of payoffs matters, and that swapping the rows and columns doesn't change anything).
6561 if you relax strict preferences. A taxonomy is welcome: Wang, X. Henry, and Bill Z. Yang. “Classification of 2×2 Games and Strategic Business Behavior.” The American Economist, vol. 47, no. 2, 2003, pp. 78–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25604282. Accessed 27 Feb. 2024.
I love that topic. There has been recent updates around Coarse Equilibria by Skyrms as quasi-conventions, and I really think they deserve some investigation in epistemic game theory. Because we already know the intution for correlated equilibria grounded on rationality and common belief in rationality, and the Aumann & Brandenburger result about Nash equilibrium too. But with Coarse, not yet.
Plenty of room for more stories about simple games. There are, I've read, 726 distinct 2*2 games (noting that only the order of payoffs matters, and that swapping the rows and columns doesn't change anything).
6561 if you relax strict preferences. A taxonomy is welcome: Wang, X. Henry, and Bill Z. Yang. “Classification of 2×2 Games and Strategic Business Behavior.” The American Economist, vol. 47, no. 2, 2003, pp. 78–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25604282. Accessed 27 Feb. 2024.
I love that topic. There has been recent updates around Coarse Equilibria by Skyrms as quasi-conventions, and I really think they deserve some investigation in epistemic game theory. Because we already know the intution for correlated equilibria grounded on rationality and common belief in rationality, and the Aumann & Brandenburger result about Nash equilibrium too. But with Coarse, not yet.
I'd love to work on that more.