The name is absent



Now we confirm that the effort choices in the candidate equilibrium are
indeed mutually optimal replies. For interior states
j < m 1, a deviation
b0(j) > 0 makes B win the battle, instead of A. It leads to j + 1, instead
of
j 1, but V в (j + 1) = vb (j 1) = 0 . Hence, this deviation reduces B’s
payoff by
b0(j) compared to b(j) = 0. For A, for jm 1, contestant A
reaches j = 0 along the shortest possible series of battle victories and does
not spend any effort. Any positive effort can therefore only decrease
A’s
payoff. For
j = m 1, the battle either leads to j = m where B finally
wins the prize, or to
j = m 2. The values the players attribute to reaching
these states are
Vj(m) = 0, vb(m) = Zb, and vA(m 2) = δm^2ZA and
v
b (m 2) = 0. Using the results in Hillman and Riley (1989) and Baye,
Kovenock and deVries (1996) on a complete information all-pay auction with
prizes δ'7r'
2Za0] = δ"'"'' iZa for A and 5[Zb 0] = 5Zb for B, it is
confirmed that (20) and (21) describe the unique equilibrium cumulative
distribution functions of effort for this all-pay auction. ■

Proposition 2 shows that a very strong player has a positive continuation
value regardless of the interior state in which the tug-of-war starts and wins
with probability 1 without expending effort for every interior state except
j = m 1.

So far we have ruled out the case of equality of continuation values at
interior states, and we turn to this case now which exhausts the set of possible
cases.

Proposition 3 The tug-of-war with δioZa = δ(m 7) ZbZ for some j0
{2,...(m 1)} has a unique subgame perfect equilibrium in which players
spend a(j)
= b(j) = 0 in all interior states j = j0. They choose efforts
a(j
) and b(j) at j = j0 from the same uniform distribution on the range
[0,Z]. Payoffs are Vj(j) = δ7Za  and Vb(j) = 0 for j < jo, Vj(j) = 0 and

vb(j) = δm~7Zb for j > jo and Vj(j) = Vb(j) = 0 for j = jo.

Proof. We again construct an equilibrium to demonstrate existence.
Uniqueness follows from arguments similar to those appearing in the Ap-
pendix.

In the candidate equilibrium each contestant expends zero effort at any
state
j = j0 and expends effort at j = j0 according to a draw from the
distribution

fw = ½ 1 far '∈∈Z                  (22)

1 foi ʃ > z .

17



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The Global Dimension to Fiscal Sustainability
3. From music student to professional: the process of transition
4. Managing Human Resources in Higher Education: The Implications of a Diversifying Workforce
5. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
6. Kharaj and land proprietary right in the sixteenth century: An example of law and economics
7. Innovation in commercialization of pelagic fish: the example of "Srdela Snack" Franchise
8. Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States
9. The name is absent
10. The East Asian banking sector—overweight?