Talk:Deadlock (game theory)

Misleading title: "Deadlock (game)"

The title is slightly misleading, as there IS a game called Deadlock. (Unsigned comment by User:24.15.167.167, 05:34, 7 November 2005)

I agree – in fact I found that Deadlock (disambiguation) had this article listed as a computer game. I've changed the article title to Deadlock (game theory), which describes it more accurately. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"mutually most beneficial"

I think the phrasing "mutually most beneficial" doesn't feel right. It sounds to me like the total between players A and B is maximised at the dominant strategy. That happens to be the case in the example given (2+2 > 3+0), but it doesn't have to be: the equations would still be satisfied if each of the 3s was replaced by 99 instead. If I can get £99 if you cooperate and I defect, but only get £2 if we both defect, it feels strange to call the double-defect situation "mutually most beneficial". The page on GameTheory.net calls the situation Pareto optimal instead, which I think is more accurate; slightly less clear to the layman but also significantly less misleading. --AlexChurchill (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"bargaining deadlock and deadlock equilibrium"

I want join three concept to help understanding the outcome of the deadlock (game theory). Firstly, individual choice under imcomplete bargaining. second, bargaining deadlock is semilar to the nash equilibrium outcome. Lastly, even if there is no static adverse selection, there may be extreme delays.