The strategies that are less than 67 but bigger than 45, I think these strategies are not, they're not dominated strategies in the original game.

对于选择大于45而小于67的数,我认为他们并不是,在原博弈中并不是劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

The reason I don't want to play a strictly dominated strategy is, if instead, I play the strategy that dominates it, I do better in every case.

我不选择严格劣势策略的原因是,要我选了优势策略,我在每次博弈都得到更好的收益

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So the first argument, that's a straight forward argument, the second argument says, I put myself in other peoples shoes, I realize they're not going to play a dominated strategy, and therefore, having realized they're not going to play a dominated strategy, I shouldn't play a strategy between 45 and 67.

所以第一个过程是直截了当地,而第二个过程,我从别人的角度思考,发现他们并不会选择劣势策略,意识到他们并不会选择劣势策略后,我也不应该选择45至67的数

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

These strategies aren't dominated, nor are they dominated once you delete the dominated strategies, nor once we dominated the strategies dominated once we've deleted the dominated strategies, but they are dominated once we delete the strategies that have been dominated in the-- you get what I'm doing here.

选择20到30的策略一开始不处于劣势,在第一次剔除劣势策略时也不处于劣势,在第二次剔除势策略之后,也不处于劣势,但是在第三次剔除劣势策略之后,就变成劣势策略了,我想你们明白我的意思了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选