The name is absent



1) = 0. Hence, this deviation reduces B’s payoff by b'(j) compared to
b(j) = 0. A deviation b0(j) 0 at j > j0 does not change the state in t + 1
compared to
b(j) = 0 in the candidate equilibrium, due to the tiebreaking rule
employed. The deviation reduces
B’s payoff by b0(j) compared to b(j) = 0.
An equivalent logic applies for
α(j) at states j ^ {j0 1,j0}.

Turn now to the state j0. In the candidate equilibrium, in state j0 con-
testant
A randomizes on the support [0, 2) /Vo 1Za^^ (jo 1'Zb]]. All
actions in the equilibrium support for
A at j0 yield the same expected payoff
equal to
Gj0 (x)⅛j(j0 1) + (1 Gj0(x))0 x = 0. A possible one-stage
deviation for
A at j0 is an α0(j0) (1-f^2) [^j01Za Z" ( jo kZb]. Compared
to the action
α(j0) = (1-f^2) ∕ljo 1ZaZ" (jo 1'Zb] that is inside A’s equilib-
rium support, this also leads to state
j0 1, but costs the additional amount
α0(j0) a(j0) 0. The deviation is therefore not profitable for A. The same
type of argument applies for
b(j0).

A similar argument applies to the state j0 1. In the candidate equilib-
rium, in state
j0 1 contestant A randomizes on the support [0, (1-f^2) Z”' jo Zb
ZoZa)]. All actions in the equilibrium support for A at j0 1 yield the
same expected payoff equal to
Gj0-1 (x)⅛j(j0 2) + (1 Gjo-1(x))0 x =
ɪɪa[Zo1ZaZ" (jo 1'Zb] = uA(j0 1).11 A possible one-stage deviation
for
A at j0 1 is an α0(j0 1) (1-f^2) Z" jo Zb5jo Za]. Compared to the
action
α(j0 1) = (1-f^2) [5m~joZb5joZa] that is the upper bound of A’s
equilibrium support, this also leads to state
j0 2, but costs the additional
amount
α0(j0 1) α(j0 1) 0. The deviation is not profitable for A. The
same type of argument applies for
b(j0 1). ■

Intuitively, outside of the states j0 1 and j0, one of the players is indif-
ferent between winning and losing the component contest. For instance, in
the state
j0 2, the best that player B could achieve by winning the next
component contest is to enter the state
j0 1 at which B’s continuation value
is still zero and smaller than player
A’s continuation value. As B does not
gain anything from reaching
j0 1, B should not spend any effort trying to
reach this state. But if
B does not spend effort to win, it is easy for A to
win.

The states j0 1 and j0 are different. Battle victory or defeat at one of

11More formally, all actions in the support of A’s equilibrium local strategy that are
not mass points of
B’s local strategy yield the same expected payoff. Since B has a mass
point at zero, this does not hold at
a = 0, but for every a in a neigborhood above zero.

15



More intriguing information

1. CURRENT CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL POLICY
2. Evaluation of the Development Potential of Russian Cities
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands
7. Placentophagia in Nonpregnant Nulliparous Mice: A Genetic Investigation1
8. fMRI Investigation of Cortical and Subcortical Networks in the Learning of Abstract and Effector-Specific Representations of Motor Sequences
9. WP 1 - The first part-time economy in the world. Does it work?
10. Does South Africa Have the Potential and Capacity to Grow at 7 Per Cent?: A Labour Market Perspective
11. Outline of a new approach to the nature of mind
12. Weak and strong sustainability indicators, and regional environmental resources
13. BEN CHOI & YANBING CHEN
14. Testing the Information Matrix Equality with Robust Estimators
15. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
16. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
17. Howard Gardner : the myth of Multiple Intelligences
18. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF COTTON AND PEANUT RESEARCH IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
19. ASSESSMENT OF MARKET RISK IN HOG PRODUCTION USING VALUE-AT-RISK AND EXTREME VALUE THEORY
20. The name is absent