Dollar auction

The dollar auction is a non-zero sum sequential game explored by economist Martin Shubik to illustrate how a short-sighted approach to rational choice can lead to decisions that are, in the long-run, irrational.^[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/3
Views:
101 916
2 961 095
287 594

Transcription

Play

The setup involves an auctioneer who volunteers to auction off a dollar bill with the following rule: the bill goes to the winner; however, the second-highest bidder also loses the amount that they bid, making them the biggest loser in the auction. The winner can get a dollar for a mere 5 cents (the minimum bid), but only if no one else enters into the bidding war.

However, entering the auction with a low bid may result in a problematic outcome. For instance, a player might begin by bidding 5 cents, hoping to make a 95-cent profit. They can be outbid by another player bidding 10 cents, as a 90-cent profit is still desirable. Similarly, another bidder may bid 15 cents, making an 85-cent profit. Meanwhile, the second bidder may attempt to convert their loss of 10 cents into a gain of 80 cents by bidding 20 cents, and so on. Every player has a choice of either paying for nothing or bidding 5 cents more on the dollar.

A series of short-term rational bids will reach and ultimately surpass one dollar as the bidders seek to minimize their losses. If the first bidder bids 95 cents, and the second bidder bids one dollar (for no net gain or loss), the first bidder stands to lose 95 cents unless they bid $1.05, in which case bidding more than the value of the dollar would reduce their losses to only 5 cents.^[1] Bidding continues with the second highest bidder always losing more than the highest bidder and therefore always trying to become the high bidder. Once the highest bid reaches one dollar, only the auctioneer will profit in the end.^[1]

Analysis

The game is a type of bidding fee auction which is a discrete version of the war of attrition. Like these games, the dollar auction has a symmetric mixed strategy equilibrium (there are also asymmetric pure equilibria). Suppose we start with two players; player 1 moves in odd periods, while player 2 moves in even periods. When a player is behind, they are indifferent between raising and dropping out. If the opponent drops out with probability $p$ , raising gives the player an expected payoff of $p\times 1+(1-p)\times 0-0.05.$ On the other hand, dropping out yields zero, so indifference requires that the opponent drops out with 5% probability each period. Notice that this probability is independent of how high the bids currently are; this follows from the fact that past bids are a sunk cost.^[2] The maximum bid follows a binomial distribution with mean 0.5 (recall the bidders make zero profits each, on average).^{[citation needed]}

Notes

^ ^a ^b ^c Shubik: 1971. Page 109
^ Augenblick, Ned (2016-01-01). "The Sunk-Cost Fallacy in Penny Auctions". The Review of Economic Studies. 83 (1): 58–86. doi:10.1093/restud/rdv037. ISSN 0034-6527. Retrieved 2021-03-26.

References

Shubik, Martin (1971). "The Dollar Auction Game: A Paradox in Noncooperative Behavior and Escalation" (PDF file, direct download 274 KB). Journal of Conflict Resolution. 15 (1): 109–111. doi:10.1177/002200277101500111. S2CID 155038630.
Poundstone, William (1993). "The Dollar Auction". Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286162-X.

v t e Topics in game theory
Definitions	Congestion game Cooperative game Determinacy Escalation of commitment Extensive-form game First-player and second-player win Game complexity Graphical game Hierarchy of beliefs Information set Normal-form game Preference Sequential game Simultaneous game Simultaneous action selection Solved game Succinct game
Equilibrium concepts	Bayes correlated equilibrium Bayesian Nash equilibrium Berge equilibrium Core Correlated equilibrium Epsilon-equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategy Gibbs equilibrium Mertens-stable equilibrium Markov perfect equilibrium Nash equilibrium Pareto efficiency Perfect Bayesian equilibrium Proper equilibrium Quantal response equilibrium Quasi-perfect equilibrium Risk dominance Satisfaction equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Shapley value Strong Nash equilibrium Subgame perfection Trembling hand
Strategies	Appeasement Backward induction Bid shading Collusion De-escalation Deterrence Escalation Forward induction Grim trigger Markov strategy Dominant strategies Pure strategy Mixed strategy Strategy-stealing argument Tit for tat
Classes of games	Bargaining problem Cheap talk Global game Intransitive game Mean-field game Mechanism design n-player game Perfect information Large Poisson game Potential game Repeated game Screening game Signaling game Stackelberg competition Strictly determined game Stochastic game Symmetric game Zero-sum game
Games	Go Chess Infinite chess Checkers Tic-tac-toe Prisoner's dilemma Gift-exchange game Optional prisoner's dilemma Traveler's dilemma Coordination game Chicken Centipede game Lewis signaling game Volunteer's dilemma Dollar auction Battle of the sexes Stag hunt Matching pennies Ultimatum game Rock paper scissors Pirate game Dictator game Public goods game Blotto game War of attrition El Farol Bar problem Fair division Fair cake-cutting Cournot game Deadlock Diner's dilemma Guess 2/3 of the average Kuhn poker Nash bargaining game Induction puzzles Trust game Princess and monster game Rendezvous problem
Theorems	Arrow's impossibility theorem Aumann's agreement theorem Folk theorem Minimax theorem Nash's theorem Negamax theorem Purification theorem Revelation principle Sprague–Grundy theorem Zermelo's theorem
Key figures	Albert W. Tucker Amos Tversky Antoine Augustin Cournot Ariel Rubinstein Claude Shannon Daniel Kahneman David K. Levine David M. Kreps Donald B. Gillies Drew Fudenberg Eric Maskin Harold W. Kuhn Herbert Simon Hervé Moulin John Conway Jean Tirole Jean-François Mertens Jennifer Tour Chayes John Harsanyi John Maynard Smith John Nash John von Neumann Kenneth Arrow Kenneth Binmore Leonid Hurwicz Lloyd Shapley Melvin Dresher Merrill M. Flood Olga Bondareva Oskar Morgenstern Paul Milgrom Peyton Young Reinhard Selten Robert Axelrod Robert Aumann Robert B. Wilson Roger Myerson Samuel Bowles Suzanne Scotchmer Thomas Schelling William Vickrey
Miscellaneous	All-pay auction Alpha–beta pruning Bertrand paradox Bounded rationality Combinatorial game theory Confrontation analysis Coopetition Evolutionary game theory First-move advantage in chess Glossary of game theory List of game theorists List of games in game theory No-win situation Paradox of tolerance Solving chess Topological game Tragedy of the commons Tyranny of small decisions

This page was last edited on 26 May 2024, at 18:51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia