So he says that position 1, strategy 1, choosing the most extreme left wing position is a dominated strategy.

他说到立场1,也就是策略1,即选择最极端的左翼立场,是劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So Thomas said something which was true, but it doesn't quite match with the definition of a dominated strategy.

托马斯所说的是对的,但这的确劣势策略的定义不太相符

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Delete those. Delete those for everyone else, because everyone else is not going to play a dominated strategy.

应该剔除它们,其他人也会这么做,因为其他人也不会,采用劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So once again what this idea is this idea is you yourself should not play a dominated strategy.

所以再次强调,站在我们自己的立场上说,我们不应采用劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

That's a third of the people who seem to be choosing a dominated strategy or is it?

为什么有三分之一,会选择劣势策略呢

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 I claim that neither player has a dominated strategy, let's just check.

我说没有参与人存在劣势策略,我们来验证一下

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Henry. Henry. So Henry is saying sure i don't have a dominated strategy.

亨利认为我们确实没有劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Now since we think that Hannibal, the attacker, is not going to play a weakly dominated strategy, we think Hannibal is not going to choose the hard pass.

好了,既然我们认为入侵者汉尼拔,不会选择弱劣势策略,我们认为汉尼拔不会选择崎岖之途

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So the first lesson of the class, and there are going to be lots of lessons, that emerges immediately from the definition of a dominated strategy and it's this.

这节课的第一个结论,以后我们会总结更多的结论,从严格优势博弈概念里总结出来的,结论是这样的

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Just as we said you should never choose a strictly dominated strategy, you're probably never going to choose a weakly dominated strategy either, but it's a little more subtle.

我们说过,不要采用严格劣势策略,你也不应该采用弱劣势策略,不过这个更严密一些罢了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

It is true that by both choosing, by both following this lesson and not choosing the dominated strategy Beta, we ended up with payoffs, , that were bad.

如果我们都不去选择,劣势策略β,我们的收益就是次优的收益

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So we look at the definition of a strictly dominated strategy.

我们来看看什么是严格劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Good, so for both players Snow White is a dominated strategy.

没错,《白雪公主》是劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So rational choice in this case, people not choosing a dominated strategy; people choosing a dominant rational choice can lead to outcomes that - what do Americans call this?--that "Suck."

理性的选择,即本案例中人们不去选择劣势策略,反而选择优势策略,使总结果变得,美国人怎么说的,"糟糕"

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

One lesson was, do not play a strictly dominated strategy.

其中的一个结论是,不要采用严格劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

But to be a dominated strategy we need something else.

想要成为劣势策略还要满足别的条件

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

The argument that eliminates strategies 67 and above, or 68 upwards, that strategy just involves the first lesson of last time: do not choose a dominated strategy, admittedly weak here, but still.

剔除67以上或者68以上的过程,仅仅用到了上堂课所提到的第一个结论,即不要采用劣势策略,虽然这里是弱劣势,但同理

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Don't play a strictly dominated strategy, anything else?

不要选择劣势策略,还有吗

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Does either player here have a dominated strategy?

有哪个参与人有劣势残略吗

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So does either player have a dominated strategy?

哪个参与人有劣势策略吗

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

The reason I never want to play a strictly dominated strategy is, if instead I play the strategy that dominates it, whatever anyone else does, I'm doing better than I would have done.

为什么我不选择严格劣势策略,因为我要是选优势策略,不管别人怎么选,我总得到更好的结果

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Does either player have a dominated strategy?

两者中的任何一人有劣势策略吗

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Do not play a strictly dominated strategy.

不要选择严格劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Don't play a strictly dominated strategy.

不要选择劣势策略

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

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

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

We know from last time that you should not choose a dominated strategy, and we also know we probably aren't going to choose a weakly dominated strategy, and we also know that you should put yourself in other people's shoes and figure out that they're not going to play strongly or strictly or weakly dominated strategies.

上节课我们学到了,不要采用劣势策略,然后今天我们学到了,我们有时可能不会选择弱劣势策略,我们还学会了站在别人立场上思考,然后推测出他们不会选择,严格劣势策略或弱劣势则略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选