 |
| 等 级：资深长老 |
| 经 验 值：2937 |
| 魅 力 值：2381 |
| 龙 币：10790 |
| 积 分：5602.3 |
| 注册日期：2002-08-31 |
| |
|
|
|
Statistics show that three in a hundred passengers don't pay at all. (数据显示:3%逃票率)
Cheating the fare and playing the mating game
02.08.2005 Not all passengers using public transport purchase a valid ticket. Statistics show that three in a hundred passengers don't pay at all. What makes people cheat on fares? And what countermeasures can public transport operators take? The battle between fare cheaters and bus operators is a classic case of conflict which game theory aims to model and explain.
This article is not completely accessible. You can order an accessible version of this article by e-mail. : Cheating the fare and playing the mating game
Related link:
Resources for game theory, including games, theoretical writings and interactive models.
Game theory is primarily concerned with strategic decisions. The games in question can be anything from poker to politics, tennis to takeovers, advertising to the arms race. Many games are characterized by an uneven or incomplete distribution of information. Card players, for example, only know their own hands and must guess at what the other players hold. Games such as chess, however, are played in the open, i.e. all the information is available on the board. Depending on the game, a fixed target is at stake (a "zero-sum game" to use the jargon) or a variable target depending on the game's outcome. Some games may be played only once while others are countless repetitions of the same moves. If we apply these criteria to the example of public transport, we can define the situation as a repeatedly played zero-sum game with asymmetrical information. The transport operator does not know in advance which passengers have paid, while the passengers do not know when a ticket inspection will take place. The amount at stake is a fixed sum, i.e. the cost of a ticket. The game is generally played repeatedly, for some even on a daily basis.
Game theory muddies the waters of fare cheating
In many cases, game theory can indicate which outcomes make sense or show how a referee or game organizer can change the rules so that the game follows another course. To return to the example of public transport, an (unprincipled) passenger has an interest in not paying inasmuch as a general ticket inspection is not effected. If spot checks take place on a regular basis, game theory predicts that a fare cheater will purchase a ticket more or less often in relation to the frequency of ticket checks. This minimizes the possibility of being caught by the inspectors. But most public transport operators have recognized this problem and have introduced a further rule. They have set penalties on a sliding scale for repeat offenders.
Financier snaps up companies for a song
There are many examples of practical applications for game theory. A classic scenario is the wage negotiation forum between employer and employees (to give in or to lock out/strike?) or product strategies (specialized versus mass production?). The equity markets are also a familiar field of battle for game theorists, and they have identified some very practical outcomes to date. One financier in the USA during the 1980s developed a particularly efficient way to take over companies. By using a "two-pronged" approach, he was able to ensure a reasonable price for a takeover target, and in some cases he even ended up paying less than the original listed price. His initial move would be to make an offer for the first half of the shares at a premium to the ruling price. As soon as he had acquired a majority of the company's shares, he would then launch his second offer. This would be a significantly lower price for the remainder of the shares. Shareholders would now find themselves in the minority and run the risk of losing management control of the company. Most of them would therefore accept the offer. In some cases, the second offer was so low that the overall price ended up being less than the original ruling price on the equity markets.
Politics is simply another game
Game theorists view their approach as applicable beyond the realm of economics. Game theory also explains the narrow margin of difference between the Democratic and Republican policies in US elections. The parties are targeting the median voters (the voters exactly in the center), because the Democrats already have all the votes to the left and the Republicans already have all the votes to the right. The result: virtually identical party policies. Game theory has further applications, however, and attempts to model social phenomena such as finding a partner or family life.
|
|
--
to be or not to be, that is not a question... |
|
|
2008-02-28 17:10:51
