Thank you again for your great job. I would like to ask you a question. When you calculate minmax strategy the U1(A) shouldn't it be U1(A) = -2q +3(1-q) and the U1(B) = 0*q -1 (q-1)? I think that you are choosing the values from the Row Player... Thank you in advance for your time.
Hi Dimitris! No, -2 and 3 are payoffs of the column player and column player is player 2. Similarly, 0 and -1 are 2nd player's payoffs. However, we are calculating player 1's expected payoffs.
This is not related to equilibrium. This is a more generalised concept. In zero sum game only this happens to be equilibrium. If you want to ask whether mixed strategies are considered for minmax and maxmin then the answer is yes according to me.
![(AGT1E6) [Game Theory] Zero-Sum Games: The Minimax Theorem](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q6zKM13aVUI/mqdefault.jpg)
![(AGT1E6) [Game Theory] Zero-Sum Games: The Minimax Theorem](/img/tr.png)
You saved my life. Your short and clear videos is just what I needed to review things.
Thank you again for your great job. I would like to ask you a question. When you calculate minmax strategy the U1(A) shouldn't it be U1(A) = -2q +3(1-q) and the U1(B) = 0*q -1 (q-1)? I think that you are choosing the values from the Row Player... Thank you in advance for your time.
Hi Dimitris! No, -2 and 3 are payoffs of the column player and column player is player 2. Similarly, 0 and -1 are 2nd player's payoffs. However, we are calculating player 1's expected payoffs.
What an explication ! Short and clear = I subscribe 👏
Omg this is so helpful! Thank you sir
Thank you sir! It saves a lot.
Thanks, very helpful
Thank you!!
Amazing
Great!! thank you so much!!
this calculates the mixed strategy nash equalibrium, right?
not exactly.
This is not related to equilibrium. This is a more generalised concept. In zero sum game only this happens to be equilibrium. If you want to ask whether mixed strategies are considered for minmax and maxmin then the answer is yes according to me.