# Morning Discussion

by Xav de Matos, Jan 25, 2011 5:00am PST

Vacation's over. I really enjoyed my time away from work, exploring some of the great spots buried within Chicago. It was a hectic time in the city due to the face-off between the Bears and the Pack. It didn't turn out well for Bears fans.

What did turn out well was Never Not Funny, live at the Congress Theater. The show was hilarious as usual, Daver sang the theme and the crew sang along at the end. As an added bonus, I had the pleasure of meeting the crew. What a classy group of gentlemen.

Well, it's back to work for me. Next time I'll be sure to remember to take more than two days off. Maybe.

• Anyone here know a lot about game theory?

Is there a Pareto optimum in the chicken game? If so then I'm havning trouble understanding pareto optimums -- they are supposed to be where no other outcome makes anyone worse, right?

If so, then in:
1,1 | 4,2
2,4 | 3,3

i know that the nash is 2,4 and 4,2, but which would be pareto? 3,3? that wouldnt make sense because then you're worsening someone in 2,4 and 4,2, right? and 2,4/4,2 cant be because then you're worsening someone from the position of 3,3.

(that or im totally confused!)

Thread Truncated. Click to see all 24 replies.

• What that means is that 3,3 is a pareto improvement compared to 2,2, and that no other outcome is universally preferred to 3,3. However, 1,4 and 4,1 are also pareto optimal, since while they are not pareto improvements from 2,2, they themselves have no possible outcome which is a pareto improvement. So yes, in the game which you have set up there, all points but 2,2 are pareto optimums.

Pareto optimality says nothing about fairness or equality. For example, when looking at allocation/trade, if there are \$100 and you get \$99 and I get \$1, that's just as pareto optimal as both of us getting \$50. If we both get \$45, that's not pareto efficient, because one or both of us can get more money without making the other worse off.
• duke3d.exe : GeorgeB3DR