Game Theory 101: Sequential Games
When there are sequences of events - interesting outcomes often emerge!
This semester I’m teaching game theory at Susquehanna University and posting the lecture videos. In this lesson, we examine sequential games. A game is sequential if there is at least one sequence of events - at least one player makes a decision after another player makes a decision. This is in contrast to simultaneous games, which we’ve studied to this point, where participants make their strategic choices at the same time.
(Not sure I need to mention spoilers for a TV show that was 25 years ago … but there are spoilers for season 1 from Survivor.)
We start this video by watching the final immunity challenge from season 1 in survivor and find out that Richard Hatch made a brilliant strategic move. He let go of the idol, not for the stated reasons, but because he figured out it was his only way to win.
To win Survivor, a person needed to make it to the final two contestants and needed to win a vote vs. the other contestant by the 9 contestants who had previously lost. Richard knew he’d struggle to win get the votes in either case, but knew he’d lose for sure against Rudy who was loved by all the contestants. But Richard faced a problem: he had an alliance with Rudy. If Richard Hatch won immunity, he could:
Ensure Rudy wasn’t in the final two, but then he’d violated his agreement, would lose Rudy’s vote in the final two and possibly others, losing the match.
Include Rude in the final two and lose to Rudy anyway.
This meant that “winning” the immunity challenge meant losing Survivor. The only way he had a chance to win the entire season was to lose the immunity challenge, which he chose to do.
For more, check on this first video on sequential games: