Task 2 - Uncertainty environments an

Theory of decisions

LUISA

To
RICARDO JAVIER PINED
TUTOR

Universidad Nacional Abierta y a

Academic and Research Vice

2020
inty environments and game theory
Theory of decisions

LUISA

To
CARDO JAVIER PINEDA
TUTOR

d Nacional Abierta y a Distancia

ic and Research Vice-rector

2020
Task 2 - Uncertainty environments and game theory
1. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Profit Matrix)
In the company ABC several alternatives are presented to choose the best technology of four possible, whose pe
equipments that comprise it. The expected benefits of each alternative and degree of adaptation of the workers a
alpha of 0,7.
According to Table 1 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Sava
2. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Cost Matrix)
A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan its level of supply to
exact number of crates is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 73
number of hoppers is expected to result in additional costs, either due to excessive supplies or because demand
$). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.
According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Sava
3. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Cost Matrix)
A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan its level of supply to
exact number of crates is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 580, 720, 750, 790 and 83
number of hoppers is expected to result in additional costs, either due to excessive supplies or because demand
$). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,55.
According to Table 3 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Sava
4. Game Theory Method
Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only two strategies. Con
According to Table 4 find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m
5. Game Theory Method
Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only two strategies. Con
According to Table 5, find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m
6. Optimum solution for two-person games
The games represent the latest case of lack of information where intelligent opponents are working in a conflicting
proposed to solve sets of two people and sum zero, called minimax - maximin criterion. To determine a fair game,
the Solver.
Solve the game of players A and B to determine the value of the game, using the proposed Excel tool, according
 (Profit Matrix)
gy of four possible, whose performance depends on the adaptation of the workers who will manipulate the
f adaptation of the workers are given in the table, in millions of pesos ($). For Hurwicz please assume an

tic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.
(Cost Matrix)
must plan its level of supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The
s: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are therefore four levels of supply. The deviation from the
supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hundreds of dollars (US

tic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.
(Cost Matrix)
must plan its level of supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The
s: 580, 720, 750, 790 and 830 crates. There are therefore four levels of supply. The deviation from the
supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hundreds of dollars (US

tic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

has only two strategies. Consider the following 2 x n game: Table 4

pplied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

has only two strategies. Consider the following game m x 2: Table 5

pplied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

nts are working in a conflicting environment. The result is that a very conservative criterion is generally
on. To determine a fair game, the minimax = maximin, it is necessary to solve the stable strategy through

oposed Excel tool, according to the data in table 6.

 PROFIT MATRIX

Table 1 Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275

CRITERION LAPLACE

Probability (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5)

Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275

Row 5 is implemented as it generates the greatest utility.

CRITERION WALD OR PESSIMISTIC

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275

I perform the analysis and take the highest value of that analysis that in our case would be Technology 3.
CRITERION OPTIMISTIC

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275

I perform the analysis and take the highest value of that analysis that in our case would be Technology 5.
CRITERION HURWICZ

Alpha → MAX 0.7

Alpha → MIN 0.3

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275

Technology 5 is taken.
CRITERION SAVAGE

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 2118 2168 2213 2265
Tech 2 2109 2158 2245 2252
Tech 3 2145 2177 2232 2256
Tech 4 2130 2166 2206 2255
Tech 5 2128 2165 2213 2275
MAXIMUM 2145 2177 2245 2275

NEW MATRIX

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
Tech 1 27 9 32 10
Tech 2 36 19 0 23
Tech 3 0 0 13 19
Tech 4 15 11 39 20
Tech 5 17 12 32 0

CONCLUSION: Technology 5 is the better option.

CONCLUSION: Technology 5 is the better option.
 Fist very well
2230
2328
2303
2322
2335

(1/5)

Fist very well VM

2230 2198.8
2328 2218.4
2303 2222.6
2322 2215.8
2335 2223.2
MAXIMUM 2223.2

Fist very well MINIMUM

2230 2118
2328 2109
2303 2145
2322 2130
2335 2128
MAXIMUM 2145
ase would be Technology 3.

Fist very well MAXIMUM

2230 2265
2328 2328
2303 2303
 2322 2322
2335 2335
MAXIMUM 2335
ase would be Technology 5.

Fist very well MAXIMUM MINIMUM VM

2230 2265 2118 2220.9
2328 2328 2109 2262.3
2303 2303 2145 2255.6
2322 2322 2130 2264.4
2335 2335 2128 2272.9
MAXIMUM 2272.9

Fist very well

2230
2328
2303
2322
2335
2335

Fist very well MAXIMUM

105 105
7 36
32 32
13 39
0 32
MINIMUM 32
 COST MATRIX

Table 2 Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287

CRITERION LAPLACE

Probability (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5)

Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)

e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287

The best alternative would be 2 since it has greater utility.

CRITERION WALD OR PESSIMISTIC

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287

Row 2 is chosen because it has less utility.

CRITERION OPTIMISTIC

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287

Row 1 is taken because lowest cost.

CRITERION HURWICZ

Alpha → MAX 0.25

Alpha → MIN 0.75

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287

Row 5 is taken because that is where there is more probability.

CRITERION SAVAGE

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 2109 2197 2236 2271
e2 (630) 2112 2152 2228 2281
e3 (680) 2137 2168 2240 2275
e4 (715) 2110 2176 2238 2286
e5 (730) 2136 2173 2243 2287
MINIMUM 2109 2152 2228 2271

NEW MATRIX

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
e1 (610) 0 45 8 0
e2 (630) 3 0 0 10
e3 (680) 28 16 12 4
e4 (715) 1 24 10 15
e5 (730) 27 21 15 16

The best state would be 2, which is the lowest expected cost.

CONCLUSION: e2 is the better option because have the lowest cost.
 e5 (730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

(1/5)

e5 (730) VM
2332 2229
2315 2217.6
2317 2227.4
2331 2228.2
2329 2233.6
MINIMUM 2217.6

e5 (730) MAXIMUM
2332 2332
2315 2315
2317 2317
2331 2331
2329 2329
MINIMUM 2315

e5 (730) MINIMUM
2332 2109
2315 2112
2317 2137
 2331 2110
2329 2136
MINIMUM 2109

e5 (730) MAXIMUM MINIMUM VM

2332 2332 2109 2164.75
2315 2315 2112 2162.75
2317 2317 2137 2182
2331 2331 2110 2165.25
2329 2329 2136 2184.25
MINIMUM 2162.75

e5 (730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329
2315

Fist very well MAXIMUM

17 45
0 10
2 28
16 24
14 27
MINIMUM 10
 COST MATRIX

Table 3 Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260

CRITERION LAPLACE

Probability (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5)

Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)

e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260

State 2 is chosen since the cost is low

CRITERION WALD OR PESSIMISTIC

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260

The best state would be 1, since looking at the results is the most appropriate.
CRITERION OPTIMISTIC

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260

State 3 is taken because lowest cost.

CRITERION HURWICZ

Alpha → MAX 0.45

Alpha → MIN 0.55

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260

The best state would be 2, which is the lowest expected cost.

CRITERION SAVAGE

Event
Alternative e1 (610) e2 (630) e3 (680) e4 (715)
e1 (610) 1147 1152 1238 1283
e2 (630) 1109 1193 1222 1298
e3 (680) 1106 1181 1245 1281
e4 (715) 1134 1177 1249 1276
e5 (730) 1149 1197 1248 1260
MINIMUM 1106 1152 1222 1260

NEW MATRIX

Event
Alternative Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well
e1 (610) 41 0 16 23
e2 (630) 3 41 0 38
e3 (680) 0 29 23 21
e4 (715) 28 25 27 16
e5 (730) 43 45 26 0

The option 3 with the lowest opportunity cost is chosen.

CONCLUSION: e1 and e3are the best options since they are less expensive
 e5 (730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

(1/5)

e5 (730) VM
1311 1226.2
1314 1227.2
1346 1231.8
1349 1237
1328 1236.4
MINIMUM 1226.2

e5 (730) MAXIMUM
1311 1311
1314 1314
1346 1346
1349 1349
1328 1328
MINIMUM 1311

e5 (730) MINIMUM
1311 1147
1314 1109
1346 1106
 1349 1134
1328 1149
MINIMUM 1106

e5 (730) MAXIMUM MINIMUM VM

1311 1311 1147 1220.8
1314 1314 1109 1201.25
1346 1346 1106 1214
1349 1349 1134 1230.75
1328 1328 1149 1229.55
MINIMUM 1201.25

e5 (730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328
1311

Fist very well MAXIMUM

0 41
3 41
35 35
38 38
17 45
MINIMUM 35
 GAME THEORY METHOD

PLAYER 2 Table 4
STRATEGY
A B C MINIMUM
I 27 33 38 27
PLAYER 1
II 19 25 31 19
MAXIMUM 27 33 38

CONCLUSION: The minimum and maximum given the same 27, we deliver the game.
he game.
 GAME THEORY METHOD

PLAYER 2 Table 5
STRATEGY
A B MINIMUM
I 27 33 27
PLAYER 1 II 19 25 19
II 33 37 33
MAXIMUM 33 37

CONCLUSION: As the minimum and maximum gave us 33 we give the game over.
 OPTIMUM SOLUTION OF TWO-PERSON GAMES

Table 6 PLAYER B
81 83 81 80 91
PLAYER A

84 83 86 86 82
82 78 86 89 84
87 87 91 89 88

83 85 35 88 81

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 I
1 0 0 0 0 1

PLAYER B
P1 0 81 83 81 80
PLAYER A

P2 0 84 83 86 86
P3 0 82 78 86 89
P4 1 87 87 91 89
P5 0 83 85 35 88
I 1 MAXIMUM 87 87 91 89
MINIMUM 87

VE 87 87 91 89

MINZ = V 87
 MINZ = V
87

MINIMUM MAXIMUM VE
91 80 81
82 82 84
84 78 87 82
88 87 87
81 35 83
91

88