The highest Player II ever chooses is 2, and the highest response that Player I ever makes to any strategy 2 or less is 6/4, so all these things bigger than 6/4 can go.

参与人II最大只会选策略2,参与人I针对这种情况下,最大只会选择6/4,即大于6/4的策略也会被剔除

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So we know that 2 is not dominated, and particularly not dominated by 3, When you delete the dominated strategy of 2 dominating 1, or 1 being dominated, when you delete that and 10, then it is.

我们知道选立场2并不是劣势策略,它并不劣于选立场3,当你剔除劣于策略2的劣势策略1,或者说立场1处于劣势,当你剔除策略1和10之后,2就变成劣势策略了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Both people would rather be at an equilibrium than to be mal-coordinated or uncoordinated, but Player 1 wants to go to Bourne ultimatum and Player 2 wants to go to Good Shepherd, and actually I thought Nina's strategy there was pretty good.

每个参与人都觉得达成均衡,总比协调失败要好得多,但是参与人1想看《谍影重重》,而参与人2想看《特工风云》,我觉得妮娜的策略很好

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So what Christine is arguing is, even though it's the case that 2 is not a dominated strategy, if we do the process of iterative deletion of dominated strategies and we delete the dominated strategies, then maybe we should look again and see if it's dominated now.

克里斯汀说的是,即使选择立场2不是劣势策略,如果我们迭代剔除劣势策略,然后我们剔除掉了劣势策略,然后再来回头看看还有没有劣势策略了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选