Game Theory

Model strategic situations where outcomes depend on your choice and others’ choices—then design moves or rules to shift the equilibrium.

Author

John von Neumann & Oskar Morgenstern; John Nash; many successors (Aumann, Schelling, Myerson)



Game theory studies interdependent decisions. Players choose strategies; payoffs depend on everyone’s choices. An equilibrium (often Nash) is a stable profile where no player wants to deviate on their own. The craft is twofold: (1) analyse the given game to predict behaviour; (2) change the game—payoffs, information, or timing—so better outcomes become equilibrium.

How it works


Game typezero-sum (one’s gain is another’s loss) vs non-zero-sum (scope for win–win or traps).

Information – complete/incomplete; perfect/imperfect; simultaneous vs sequential moves.

EquilibriaNash (no unilateral gain by deviating), subgame perfect (credible in every subtree), mixed strategies when no pure equilibrium exists.

Canonical gamesPrisoner’s Dilemma (co-operation trap), Stag Hunt (coordination & trust), Battle of the Sexes (coordination with preference conflict), Matching Pennies (zero-sum).

Dynamic effectsrepeated games enable reputation, reciprocity, and trigger strategies; signalling/screening convey or extract private information; commitment and credible threats reshape incentives.

Mechanism design – set rules/contracts/auctions so participants’ incentives produce the outcome you want.

Use-cases


Game typezero-sum (one’s gain is another’s loss) vs non-zero-sum (scope for win–win or traps).

Information – complete/incomplete; perfect/imperfect; simultaneous vs sequential moves.

EquilibriaNash (no unilateral gain by deviating), subgame perfect (credible in every subtree), mixed strategies when no pure equilibrium exists.

Canonical gamesPrisoner’s Dilemma (co-operation trap), Stag Hunt (coordination & trust), Battle of the Sexes (coordination with preference conflict), Matching Pennies (zero-sum).

Dynamic effectsrepeated games enable reputation, reciprocity, and trigger strategies; signalling/screening convey or extract private information; commitment and credible threats reshape incentives.

Mechanism design – set rules/contracts/auctions so participants’ incentives produce the outcome you want.

Pitfalls & Cautions


Wrong payoffs – pretty maths with the wrong incentives predicts nothing.

Static when dynamic – solving a one-shot game that is actually repeated.

Incredible threats – strategies that won’t be optimal when the moment arrives (fix with subgame perfection or commitment).

Equilibrium selection – multiple equilibria; use focal points, small frictions, or coordination devices.

Misreading mixed strategies – they model unpredictability, not indecision; often implement as controlled randomisation.

Over-engineering – mechanisms too complex for humans or systems create new failure modes.

Related Mental Models

Click below to learn other mental models

  • The two Arrows

    The two Arrows

    Focus where importance intersects with control. Act directly on what matters and you can change; influence or ignore the rest.

  • Decision Tree

    Decision Tree

    A visual of sequential decisions with probabilities and payoffs; fold back to compute expected value.

  • 1000 True Fans

    1000 True Fans

    Kevin Kelly’s rule of thumb for creators and niche businesses: a direct base of ~1,000 true fans can sustain a venture if ARPU and retention are healthy.

Preparing reader…