Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 122

 

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA – UNAD


 
Unit 2: Task 2 - Uncertainty environments and game theory
 
Students:
MARIA LUCILA CORREA
YOLIMA OREJUELA AGUIAR
LUIS ENRIQUE GONZALEZ
 
 
Teacher
NURY YASMIN MORENO
Course
TEORIA DE LAS DECISIONES
Group
(212066A_761)
 
 
 
 
BOGOTA D.C
10 OF APRIL 2020
 
 
INTRODUCTION

 
In the process of this guide we make decisions that guarantee the development and continuity
of a decision process in production and management problems. Decision making is inherent in
most aspects of finance, economics, industry, and social activities. One of the tools that
currently provides the most reliable decisions is Optimization, a field in which Mathematics and
Computer Science come together.
The purpose of this is to effectively construct and resolve realistic models of the situation under
study, in order to allow decision-making to explore a wide variety of possible alternatives.
We will learn with the elaboration of the seven exercises how reality is complex, many of these
models have the following characteristics: They are of enormous dimensions, in terms of the
number of decision variables or the number of conditions. They are stochastic, that is, there are
parameters whose values ​cannot be controlled by the person making the decision and are
unknown. Uncertainty may be due to a lack of reliable data, measurement errors, or parameters
that represent information about the future.

-They are integers, that is, integer variables intervene.


-They are nonlinear, that is, both the objective function and some of the conditions
-Are nonlinear functions.
nt and continuity
ing is inherent in
tools that
Mathematics and

he situation under
lternatives.
x, many of these
in terms of the
, that is, there are
sion and are
ors, or parameters

ions
Exercise 1. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hu

To develop the exercise 1 to 3, it is necessary to consult the following reference:

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 341-347), New De
knowledge environment of the course.

In the company ABC several alternatives are presented to choose the best technology of fo
workers who will manipulate the equipments that comprise it. The expected benefits of eac
table, in millions of pesos ($). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,7.

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

According to Table 1 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic crite
to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

All events are considered to be equally probable.

p(j)

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2223.2

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

He reasons himself about the worst situation that can arise.

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 3 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2145.

OPTIMISTIC APPROACH

He reasons himself about the best situation that can arise.


Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2335.

HURWICZ APPROACH

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2272,9.

SAVAGE APPROACH
Se transforma la matriz de resultados en una matriz de errores. De esta manera, el deciso
tomar una decisión equivocada. Para ello hay que determinar el mejor resultado para cada

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Alternative

Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5, technology 3 and technology 5 can be selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, Technology 5 was the most repeated, so it w


stic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Profit Matrix):

eference:

p. 341-347), New Delhi: Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the

best technology of four possible, whose performance depends on the adaptation of the
cted benefits of each alternative and degree of adaptation of the workers are given in the
0,7.

Event
Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

mistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according

1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5


Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well VM
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330 2220.8
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328 2218.4
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303 2222.6
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322 2215.8
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335 2223.2

2223.2
Higher gain

23.2

Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well VM
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330 2128
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328 2109
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303 2145
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322 2130
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335 2128

2145
Higher gain

45.
Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well VM
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335 2335

2335
Higher gain

35.

optimistic coefficient= 0.7


pessimist coefficient= 0.3

Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well VM
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330 2269.4
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328 2262.3
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303 2255.6
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322 2264.4
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335 2272.9

2272.9
Higher gain

72,9.
a manera, el decisor puede evaluar fácilmente el coste de oportunidad en el que incurre por
resultado para cada situación que se puede presentar.

Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well
acceptably well
y
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Fits
Fits Fits very
Does not fit successfull Fits well VM
acceptably well
y
17 9 32 10 5 32
36 19 0 23 7 36
0 0 13 19 32 32
15 11 39 20 13 39
17 12 32 0 0 32

Low= 32

most repeated, so it was decided to work with this technology.


Exercise 1. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optim

To develop the exercise 1 to 3, it is necessary to consult the following reference:

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 341-347), New De
the course.

In the company ABC several alternatives are presented to choose the best technology of fo
manipulate the equipments that comprise it. The expected benefits of each alternative and
Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,7.

Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

According to Table 1 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic crite
criteria.

p(j)
Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2223.2

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

He reasons himself about the worst situation that can arise.


Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2335.

Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2272,9.

SAVAGE APPROACH
Se transforma la matriz de resultados en una matriz de errores. De esta manera, el deciso
equivocada. Para ello hay que determinar el mejor resultado para cada situación que se pu

Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Alternative
Technology 1
Technology 2
Technology 3
Technology 4
Technology 5

Technology 5, technology 3 and technology 5 can be selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, Technology 5 was the most repeated, so it w


d or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Profit Matrix):

ng reference:

(pp. 341-347), New Delhi: Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the knowledge environment o

he best technology of four possible, whose performance depends on the adaptation of the workers who will
of each alternative and degree of adaptation of the workers are given in the table, in millions of pesos ($). For

Event
Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

ssimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit

1/5 1/52 1/53 1/54 1/55


Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Higher gain 2223.2

$2223.2
Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Higher gain 2335

$2335.

optimistic coefficient= 0.7


pessimist coefficient= 0.3

Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Higher gain 2272.9

$2272,9.
esta manera, el decisor puede evaluar fácilmente el coste de oportunidad en el que incurre por tomar una decisi
ada situación que se puede presentar.

Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
2128 2168 2213 2265 2330
2109 2158 2245 2252 2328
2145 2177 2232 2256 2303
2130 2166 2206 2255 2322
2128 2165 2213 2275 2335

Does not fit Fits acceptably Fits successfully Fits well Fits very well
17 9 32 10 5
36 19 0 23 7
0 0 13 19 32
15 11 39 20 13
17 12 32 0 0

Low= 32

e most repeated, so it was decided to work with this technology.


in the knowledge environment of

on of the workers who will


, in millions of pesos ($). For

level according to the benefit

Columna6
VM
2220.8
2218.4
2222.6
2215.8
2223.2
VM
2128
2109
2145
2130
2128

VM
2330
2328
2303
2322
2335

VM
2269.4
2262.3
2255.6
2264.4
2272.9
que incurre por tomar una decisión

VM
32
36
32
39
32
Exercise 1. Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage criteria (Pr

To develop the exercise 1 to 3, it is necessary to consult the following reference:

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 341-347), New Delhi:
Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the knowledge environment of the course.

In the company ABC several alternatives are presented to choose the best technology of four
performance depends on the adaptation of the workers who will manipulate the equipments th
The expected benefits of each alternative and degree of adaptation of the workers are given in
millions of pesos ($). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,7.

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

According to Table 1 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

All events are considered to be equally probable.

p(j) 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5


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

2223.2
Higher gain

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2223.2

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

He reasons himself about the worst situation that can arise.

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

2145
Higher gain

Technology 3 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2145.

OPTIMISTIC APPROACH

He reasons himself about the best situation that can arise.


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

2335
Higher gain

Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2335.

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.7


pessimist coefficient= 0.3

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

2272.9
Higher gain
Technology 5 is selected as it has the highest profit at $2272,9

SAVAGE APPROACH

The results matrix is transformed into an error matrix. In this way, the decision-maker can easi
opportunity cost incurred by making a wrong decision. To do this, the best result must be dete
situation that may arise.

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

Fits
Fits
Alternative Does not fit successfull Fits well
acceptably
y
Technology 1 17 9 32 10
Technology 2 36 19 0 23
Technology 3 0 0 13 19
Technology 4 15 11 39 20
Technology 5 17 12 32 0

Low= 32

Technology 5, technology 3 and technology 5 can be selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, Technology 5 was the most repeated, so it was
work with this technology.
wicz and Savage criteria (Profit Matrix):

owing reference:

ns. (pp. 341-347), New Delhi: Laxmi


environment of the course.

e the best technology of four possible, whose


manipulate the equipments that comprise it.
on of the workers are given in the table, in
7.

Fits very
well
2330
2328
2303
2322
2335

pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


nefit criteria.

1/5

Fits very
VM
well
2330 2220.8
2328 2218.4
2303 2222.6
2322 2215.8
2335 2223.2

Fits very
VM
well
2330 2128
2328 2109
2303 2145
2322 2130
2335 2128
Fits very
VM
well
2330 2330
2328 2328
2303 2303
2322 2322
2335 2335

Fits very
VM
well
2330 2269.4
2328 2262.3
2303 2255.6
2322 2264.4
2335 2272.9
, the decision-maker can easily evaluate the
, the best result must be determined for each

Fits very
well
2330
2328
2303
2322
2335

Fits very
VM
well
5 32
7 36
32 32
13 39
0 32

e selected.

s the most repeated, so it was decided to


Exercise 2. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan its level of supply to
satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact number of crates is not known, b
expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are therefore four levels of
supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result in additional costs, either due to excessiv
supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hundreds of dollars (US $). For
Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.

Event
Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)
e1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332
e2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315
e3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317
e4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331
e5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and Sava
determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5


Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)
e1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332
e2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315
e3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317
e4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331
e5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329

Min= 2217.6

The Alternative e2 is selected.


WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)


e1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332
e2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315
e3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317
e4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331
e5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329

Min= 2315

The Alternative e2 is selected.

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.75


pessimist coefficient= 0.25

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)


e1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332
e2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315
e3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317
e4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331
e5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329

Min= 2162.75

The Alternative e2 is selected.

SAVAGE APPROACH
Se transforma la matriz de resultados en una matriz de errores. De esta manera, el decisor puede evaluar fácilme
el coste de oportunidad en el que incurre por tomar una decisión equivocada. Para ello hay que determinar el m
resultado para cada situación que se puede presentar.

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)


e1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332
e2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315
e3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317
e4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331
e5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730)


e1(610) 0 45 8 0 17
e2(630) 3 0 0 10 0
e3(680) 28 16 12 4 2
e4(715) 1 24 10 15 16
e5(730) 27 21 15 16 14

Max= 45

The Alternative e1 is selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, the alternative e2 was the most repeated, so it was decided to w
with this alternative.
icz and Savage (Cost matrix):

A, must plan its level of supply to


umber of crates is not known, but is
ere are therefore four levels of
onal costs, either due to excessive
hundreds of dollars (US $). For

mistic criteria, Hurwicz and Savage

VM
2229
2217.6
2227.4
2228.2
2233.6
VM
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

VM
2164.75
2162.75
2182
2165.25
2184.25
el decisor puede evaluar fácilmente
ra ello hay que determinar el mejor

VM
45
10
28
24
27

repeated, so it was decided to work


Exercise 2. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage (C

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan i
supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact num
not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crate
therefore four levels of supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result
costs, either due to excessive supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below s
in hundreds of dollars (US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 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

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 1/5 1/52 1/53 1/54


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

Min= 2217.6
The Alternative e2 is selected.

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

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

Min= 2315

The Alternative e2 is selected.

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.75


pessimist coefficient= 0.25

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

Min= 2162.75

The Alternative e2 is selected.


SAVAGE APPROACH

Se transforma la matriz de resultados en una matriz de errores. De esta manera, el decisor pu


fácilmente el coste de oportunidad en el que incurre por tomar una decisión equivocada. Para
determinar el mejor resultado para cada situación que se puede presentar.

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

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


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

Max= 45
mistic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):

orts from the USA, must plan its level of


and friendship. The exact number of crates is
0, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are
f hoppers is expected to result in additional
not be met. The table below shows the costs
pha of 0,75.

e5(730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

r pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


enefit criteria.

1/55 Columna6
e5(730) VM
2332 2229
2315 2217.6
2317 2227.4
2331 2228.2
2329 2233.6
e5(730) VM
2332 2332
2315 2315
2317 2317
2331 2331
2329 2329

e5(730) VM
2332 2164.75
2315 2162.75
2317 2182
2331 2165.25
2329 2184.25
De esta manera, el decisor puede evaluar
una decisión equivocada. Para ello hay que
e presentar.

e5(730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

e5(730) VM
17 45
0 10
2 28
16 24
14 27
Exercise 2. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage (C

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan i
supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact num
is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 cra
therefore four levels of supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result
costs, either due to excessive supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below s
costs in hundreds of dollars (US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 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

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 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

Min= 2217.6
The Alternative e2 is selected.

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

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

Min= 2315

The Alternative e2 is selected.

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.75


pessimist coefficient= 0.25

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

Min= 2162.75

The Alternative e2 is selected.


SAVAGE APPROACH

The results matrix is transformed into an error matrix. In this way, the decision-maker can easi
the opportunity cost incurred by making a wrong decision. To do this, the best result must be d
each situation that may arise.

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

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


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

Max= 45

The Alternative e1 is selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, the alternative e2 was the most repeated, so it
to work with this alternative.
mistic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):

ports from the USA, must plan its level of


and friendship. The exact number of crates
610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are
of hoppers is expected to result in additional
n not be met. The table below shows the
e an alpha of 0,75.

e5(730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


benefit criteria.

1/5
e5(730) VM
2332 2229
2315 2217.6
2317 2227.4
2331 2228.2
2329 2233.6
e5(730) VM
2332 2332
2315 2315
2317 2317
2331 2331
2329 2329

e5(730) VM
2332 2164.75
2315 2162.75
2317 2182
2331 2165.25
2329 2184.25
ay, the decision-maker can easily evaluate
do this, the best result must be determined for

e5(730)
2332
2315
2317
2331
2329

e5(730) VM
17 45
0 10
2 28
16 24
14 27

e2 was the most repeated, so it was decided


According
What is theto expected
the corresponding
value of market
information
research
in Table
information?
3 and the Predicted Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) theory, the Expe
Value
Whatofis Sample
the efficiency
Information
of the(EVMI)
information?
and Decision Trees, respond:
a. Use EVPI to determine
Exercise if the
2.company
Criteriashould try to getWald
of Laplace, a better
orestimate of the demand.
pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage
b.  A test market study of potential product demand is expected to report a favorable (F) or unfavorable (U) condition. The re
conditional probabilities are:

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan i
satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact number of cra
but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are
levels of supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result in additional c
excessive supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hu
(US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.

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

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 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

Min= 1226.2
The Alternative e1 is selected.

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

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

Min= 1311

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.55


pessimist coefficient= 0.45

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

Min= 2203.35

SAVAGE APPROACH
The results matrix in an error matrix. In this way, the opportunity cost incurred by making the w
be easily evaluated. The best result can be determined for each situation that may arise.

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

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


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

Max= 45

Of the methods evaluated, the alternative e1 has a higher frequency, so this altern
ormation (EVPI) theory, the Expected

stic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):


nfavorable (U) condition. The relevant

from the USA, must plan its level of supply to


p. The exact number of crates is not known,
5 and 730 crates. There are therefore four
cted to result in additional costs, either due to
below shows the costs in hundreds of dollars

e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

ssimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


it criteria.

1/5
e5(730) VM
1311 1226.2
1314 1227.2
1346 1231.8
1349 1237
1328 1236.4
e5(730) VM
1311 1311
1314 1314
1346 1346
1349 1349
1328 1328

e5(730) VM
2332 2209.35
2315 2203.35
2317 2218
2331 2209.45
2329 2222.85
st incurred by making the wrong decision can
uation that may arise.

e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

e5(730) VM
0 41
3 41
35 35
38 38
17 45

her frequency, so this alternative was taken.


According
What is theto expected
the corresponding
value of market
information
research
in Table
information?
3 and the Predicted Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) theory, the Expe
Value
Whatofis Sample
the efficiency
Information
of the(EVMI)
information?
and Decision Trees, respond:
a. Use EVPI to determine
Exercise if the
2.company
Criteriashould try to getWald
of Laplace, a better
orestimate of the demand.
pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage
b.  A test market study of potential product demand is expected to report a favorable (F) or unfavorable (U) condition. The re
conditional probabilities are:

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan i
satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact number of cra
but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are
levels of supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result in additional c
excessive supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hu
(US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.

Columna1 Event Columna2 Columna3 Columna4


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

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 1/5 1/52 1/53 1/54


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

Min= 1226.2
The Alternative e1 is selected.

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

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

Min= 1311

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.55


pessimist coefficient= 0.45

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

Min= 2203.35

SAVAGE APPROACH
The results matrix in an error matrix. In this way, the opportunity cost incurred by making the w
be easily evaluated. The best result can be determined for each situation that may arise.

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

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


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

Max= 45

Of the methods evaluated, the alternative e1 has a higher frequency, so this altern
rmation (EVPI) theory, the Expected

stic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):


nfavorable (U) condition. The relevant

from the USA, must plan its level of supply to


p. The exact number of crates is not known,
and 730 crates. There are therefore four
ted to result in additional costs, either due to
elow shows the costs in hundreds of dollars

Columna5
e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

ssimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


t criteria.

1/55 Columna6
e5(730) VM
1311 1226.2
1314 1227.2
1346 1231.8
1349 1237
1328 1236.4
e5(730) VM
1311 1311
1314 1314
1346 1346
1349 1349
1328 1328

e5(730) VM
2332 2209.35
2315 2203.35
2317 2218
2331 2209.45
2329 2222.85
st incurred by making the wrong decision can
uation that may arise.

e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

e5(730) VM
0 41
3 41
35 35
38 38
17 45

er frequency, so this alternative was taken.


Exercise 2. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage (C

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan i
supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship. The exact num
is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories: 610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 cra
therefore four levels of supply. The deviation from the number of hoppers is expected to result
costs, either due to excessive supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below s
costs in hundreds of dollars (US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.

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

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic criteria
Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit criteria.

LAPLACE'S CRITERION

p(j) 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

Min= 1226.2
The Alternative e1 is selected.

WALD'S OR PESSIMIST'S APPROACH

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

Min= 1311

The Alternative e1 is selected.

HURWICZ APPROACH

optimistic coefficient= 0.55


pessimist coefficient= 0.45

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

Min= 2203.35

The Alternative e2 is selected.


SAVAGE APPROACH

The results matrix is transformed into an error matrix. In this way, the decision-maker can easi
the opportunity cost incurred by making a wrong decision. To do this, the best result must be d
each situation that may arise.

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

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


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

Max= 45

The Alternative e5 is selected.

In most of the methods evaluated, the alternative e1 was the most repeated, so it
to work with this alternative.
mistic, Hurwicz and Savage (Cost matrix):

ports from the USA, must plan its level of


and friendship. The exact number of crates
610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are
of hoppers is expected to result in additional
n not be met. The table below shows the
e an alpha of 0,75.

e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

or pessimistic, optimistic criteria, Hurwicz and


benefit criteria.

1/5
e5(730) VM
1311 1226.2
1314 1227.2
1346 1231.8
1349 1237
1328 1236.4
e5(730) VM
1311 1311
1314 1314
1346 1346
1349 1349
1328 1328

e5(730) VM
2332 2209.35
2315 2203.35
2317 2218
2331 2209.45
2329 2222.85
ay, the decision-maker can easily evaluate
do this, the best result must be determined for

e5(730)
1311
1314
1346
1349
1328

e5(730) VM
0 41
3 41
35 35
38 38
17 45

e1 was the most repeated, so it was decided


Exercise 4. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only
following 2 x n game:

Player 2
Strategy
A B C
I 27 33 38
Player 1
II 19 25 31

According to Table 4 find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to m
STRATEGY A STRATEGY B
P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1 P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1

27P1+19P2 33P1+25P2
27P1+19(1-P1) 33P1+25(1-P1)
27P1+19-19P1 33P1+25-25P1
8P1+19 8P1+25

SI P1=1 V=27 SI P1=1 V=33


SI P1= 0 V=19 SI P1= 0 V=25
40

35

30 STATION 1

STATION 2
25
STATION 3
20 STATION 4

15 STATION 5

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ory method:

ne of the players has only two strategies. Consider the

aphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.


STRATEGY C
P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1

38P1+31P2
38P1+31(1-P1)
38P1+31-31P1
7P+31

SI P1=1 V=38
SI P1= 0 V=31

V
EXPECTED
Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

A B A B B C
27Q1+33Q2= 19Q1+25Q2= 33Q1+38Q2=
27Q1+33(1-Q1) 19Q1+25(1-Q1) 33Q1+38(1-Q1)
27Q1+33-33Q1 19Q1+25-25Q1 33Q1+38-38Q1
− 5Q1+33

A C A C
27Q1+38Q2= 19Q1+38Q2=
27Q1+38(1-Q1) 19Q1+38(1-Q1)
27Q1+38-38Q1 19Q1+38-38Q1

STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3

Q1=1 V=38 Q1=1 V=19 Q1=1 V=27


Q= 0 V=33 Q= 0 V=25 Q= 0 V=38
Q2=1-Q1

B C
25Q1+31Q2=
+38(1-Q1) 25Q1+31(1-Q1)
25Q1+31-31Q1
STATION 4 STATION 5 STATION 6

Q1=1 V=19 Q1=1 V=33 Q1=1 V=25


Q= 0 V=31 Q= 0 V=38 Q= 0 V=31
Exercise 4. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only
following 2 x n game:

Player 2
Strategy
A B C
I 27 33 38
Player 1
II 19 25 31

According to Table 4 find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to m
STRATEGY A STRATEGY B
P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1 P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1

27P1+19P2 33P1+25P2
27P1+19(1-P1) 33P1+25(1-P1)
27P1+19-19P1 33P1+25-25P1
8P1+19 8P1+25

SI P1=1 V=27 SI P1=1 V=33


SI P1= 0 V=19 SI P1= 0 V=25
40

35

30 STATION 1

STATION 2
25
STATION 3
20 STATION 4

15 STATION 5

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ory method:

ne of the players has only two strategies. Consider the

aphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.


STRATEGY C
P1+P2=1 P2=1-P1

38P1+31P2
38P1+31(1-P1)
38P1+31-31P1
7P+31

SI P1=1 V=38
SI P1= 0 V=31

V
EXPECTED
Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

A B A B B C
27Q1+33Q2= 19Q1+25Q2= 33Q1+38Q2=
27Q1+33(1-Q1) 19Q1+25(1-Q1) 33Q1+38(1-Q1)
27Q1+33-33Q1 19Q1+25-25Q1 33Q1+38-38Q1
− 5Q1+33

A C A C
27Q1+38Q2= 19Q1+38Q2=
27Q1+38(1-Q1) 19Q1+38(1-Q1)
27Q1+38-38Q1 19Q1+38-38Q1

Columna1 Columna2 Columna3


STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3

Q1=1 V=38 Q1=1 V=19 Q1=1 V=27


Q= 0 V=33 Q= 0 V=25 Q= 0 V=38
Q2=1-Q1

B C
25Q1+31Q2=
+38(1-Q1) 25Q1+31(1-Q1)
25Q1+31-31Q1
Columna4 Columna5 Columna6
STATION 4 STATION 5 STATION 6

Q1=1 V=19 Q1=1 V=33 Q1=1 V=25


Q= 0 V=31 Q= 0 V=38 Q= 0 V=31
Exercise 4. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has on
Consider the following 2 x n game:

Player 2
Strategy
A B C
I 27 33 38
Player 1
II 19 25 31

According to Table 4 find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied
x 2.

FOR THE COLUMN PLAYER

Strategy A Strategy B

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE= 27P1+19P2 VE= 33P1+25P2


VE= 27P1+19(1-P1) VE= 33P1+25(1-P1)
VE= 27P1+19-19P1 VE= 33P1+25-25P1
VE= 8P1+19 VE= 8P1+25

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si P1=1 VE=33


Si P1=0 VE=19 Si P1=0 VE=25

1 27 1 33
0 19 0 25

40

35

30

25
Estrategia A
20 Strategy B
Strategy C
15

10
25
Estrategia A
20 Strategy B
Strategy C
15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Player 2
Strategy
A B C
I 27 33 38
Player 1
II 19 25 31

FOR THE ROW PLAYER

Strategy 1 Strategy 2

Q1+Q2=1 Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1 Q2=1-Q1

VE= 27Q1+33Q2 VE= 27Q1+38Q2


VE= 27Q1+33(1-Q1) VE= 27Q1+38(1-Q1)
VE= 27Q1+33-33Q1 VE= 27Q1+38-38Q1
VE= -6Q1+33 VE= -11Q1+38

Si Q1=1 VE=27 Si Q1=1 VE=27


Si Q1=0 VE=33 Si Q1=0 VE=38

1 27 1 27
0 33 0 38

40

35

30

25 Strategy 1
Strategy 2
20 Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
15 Strategy 6

10

5
Strategy 2
20 Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
15 Strategy 6

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
method:

one of the players has only two strategies.

graphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m

Strategy C

P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1

VE= 38P1+31P2
VE= 38P1+31(1-P1)
VE= 38P1+31-31P1
VE= 7P1+31

Si P1=1 VE=38
Si P1=0 VE=31

1 38
0 31

No crossing of each line is observed, so there is no value for the game.


Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Q1+Q2=1 Q1+Q2=1 Q1+Q2=1


Q2=1-Q1 Q2=1-Q1 Q2=1-Q1

VE= 19Q1+25Q2 VE= 19Q1+31Q2 VE=


VE= 19Q1+25(1-Q1) VE= 19Q1+31(1-Q1) VE=
VE= 19Q1+25-25Q1 VE= 19Q1+31-31Q1 VE=
VE= -6Q1+25 VE= -12Q1+31 VE=

Si Q1=1 VE=19 Si Q1=1 VE=19 Si Q1=1


Si Q1=0 VE=25 Si Q1=0 VE=31 Si Q1=0

1 19 1 19 1
0 25 0 31 0

Strategy 1 No crossing of each line is observed, so there is no value for the game.
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
Strategy 6
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
Strategy 6

0.9 1
Strategy 6

Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

33Q1+38Q2 VE= 25Q1+31Q2


33Q1+38(1-Q1) VE= 25Q1+31(1-Q1)
33Q1+38-38Q1 VE= 25Q1+31-31Q1
-5Q1+38 VE= -6Q1+31

VE=33 Si Q1=1 VE=25


VE=38 Si Q1=0 VE=31

33 1 25
38 0 31

value for the game.


Exercise 5. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only two
m x 2:

Player 2
Strategy
A B
I 27 33
Player 1 II 19 25
II 33 37

According to Table 5, find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to ma

STATION 1 STATION 2

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE= 27P1+19P2 VE=27P1+33P2


VE= 27P1+19(1-P1) VE=27P1+33(1-P1)
VE=27P1+19-19P1 VE=27P1+33-33P1
VE= 8P1+19 VE=-6P1+33

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si P1=1 VE=27


Si P1=0 VE=19 Si P1=0 VE=33

1 27 1 27
0 19 0 33
40

35

30

25

20
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

FOR THE PLAYER


FILA

STATION I STATION II

P1+P2=1 Q1+Q2=1
P2=1-P1 Q2=1-Q1

VE=27P1+33P2 VE=19Q1+25Q2
VE=27P1+33(1-P1) VE=19Q1+25(1-Q1)
VE=27P1+33-33P1 VE=19Q1+25-25Q1
VE=-6P1+33 VE=-6Q1+25

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si Q1=1 VE=19


Si P1=0 VE=33 Si Q1=0 VE=25

1 27 1 19
0 33 0 25

FOR THE PLAYER FILA


40
37
35
33 33
30
FOR THE PLAYER FILA
40
37
35
33 33
30
27 10
25 25
10
2019 10

15

10

0
1 2

No crossing of each line is observed, therefore, there is no value for the gam
heory method:

the players has only two strategies. Consider the following game

al method applied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

STATION 3 STATION 4

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE=33P1+25P2 VE=33P1+37P2
VE=33P1+25(1-P1) VE=33P1+37(1-P1)
VE=33P1+25-25P1 VE=33P1+37-37P1
VE=8P1+25 VE=-4P1+37

Si P1=1 VE=33 Si P1=1 VE=33


Si P1=0 VE=25 Si P1=0 VE=37

1 33 1 33
0 25 0 37

STATION 1

STATION 2

STATION 3
STATION 1

STATION 2

STATION 3 Strategy 5 has the most negative slope Strategy


Strategy 3 has the most positive slope
STATION 4

STATION 5

8P1+25=-14P1+33
22P1=8
P1=4/11

0.8 0.9 1 P2=1-4/11


P2=7/11

GAME VALUE

VE=8P1+25
VE=307/11

STATION III

Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

VE=33Q1+37Q2
VE=33Q1+37(1-Q1)
VE=33Q1+37-37Q1
VE=-4Q1+37

Si Q1=1 VE=33
Si Q1=0 VE=37

1 33
0 37
10
10
10

e is no value for the game


STATION 5 Estrategia 6

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE=19P1+33P2 VE=25P1+37P2
VE=19P1+33(1-P1) VE=25P1+37(1-P1)
VE=19P1+33-33P1 VE=25P1+37-37P1
VE=-14P1+33 VE=-12P1+37

Si P1=1 VE=19 Si P1=1 VE=25


Si P1=0 VE=33 Si P1=0 VE=37

1 19 1 25
0 33 0 37
slope Strategy

This means that if both players determine the stock probabilities of each of their
strategies, they will both have a chance of winning 9/29. This will then represent a
balanced game.
Exercise 5. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only two
m x 2:

Player 2
Strategy
A B
I 27 33
Player 1 II 19 25
II 33 37

According to Table 5, find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to ma

STATION 1 STATION 2

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE= 27P1+19P2 VE=27P1+33P2


VE= 27P1+19(1-P1) VE=27P1+33(1-P1)
VE=27P1+19-19P1 VE=27P1+33-33P1
VE= 8P1+19 VE=-6P1+33

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si P1=1 VE=27


Si P1=0 VE=19 Si P1=0 VE=33

1 27 1 27
0 19 0 33

40

35

30
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

FOR THE PLAYER


FILA

STATION I STATION II

P1+P2=1 Q1+Q2=1
P2=1-P1 Q2=1-Q1

VE=27P1+33P2 VE=19Q1+25Q2
VE=27P1+33(1-P1) VE=19Q1+25(1-Q1)
VE=27P1+33-33P1 VE=19Q1+25-25Q1
VE=-6P1+33 VE=-6Q1+25

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si Q1=1 VE=19


Si P1=0 VE=33 Si Q1=0 VE=25

1 27 1 19
0 33 0 25

FOR THE PLAYER FILA


40
37
35
33 33
30
FOR THE PLAYER FILA
40
37
35
33 33
30
27 10
25 25
10
2019 10

15

10

0
1 2

No crossing of each line is observed, therefore, there is no value for the gam
heory method:

the players has only two strategies. Consider the following game

al method applied to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

STATION 3 STATION 4

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE=33P1+25P2 VE=33P1+37P2
VE=33P1+25(1-P1) VE=33P1+37(1-P1)
VE=33P1+25-25P1 VE=33P1+37-37P1
VE=8P1+25 VE=-4P1+37

Si P1=1 VE=33 Si P1=1 VE=33


Si P1=0 VE=25 Si P1=0 VE=37

1 33 1 33
0 25 0 37

STATION 1
Strategy 5 has the most negative slope Strategy
STATION 1 Strategy 3 has the most positive slope
STATION 2

STATION 3
8P1+25=-14P1+33
STATION 4
22P1=8
STATION 5
P1=4/11

P2=1-4/11
P2=7/11

0.8 0.9 1 GAME VALUE

VE=8P1+25
VE=307/11

STATION III

Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

VE=33Q1+37Q2
VE=33Q1+37(1-Q1)
VE=33Q1+37-37Q1
VE=-4Q1+37

Si Q1=1 VE=33
Si Q1=0 VE=37

1 33
0 37
10
10
10

e is no value for the game


STATION 5 Estrategia 6

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE=19P1+33P2 VE=25P1+37P2
VE=19P1+33(1-P1) VE=25P1+37(1-P1)
VE=19P1+33-33P1 VE=25P1+37-37P1
VE=-14P1+33 VE=-12P1+37

Si P1=1 VE=19 Si P1=1 VE=25


Si P1=0 VE=33 Si P1=0 VE=37

1 19 1 25
0 33 0 37
slope Strategy

This means that if both players determine the stock probabilities of each of
their strategies, they will both have a chance of winning 9/29. This will then
represent a balanced game.
Exercise 5. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only
Consider the following game m x 2:

Player 2
Strategy
A B
I 27 33
Player 1 II 19 25
II 33 37

According to Table 5, find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied to
2.

FOR THE COLUMN PLAYER

Strategy 1 Strategy 2

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE= 27P1+19P2 VE= 27P1+33P2


VE= 27P1+19(1-P1) VE= 27P1+33(1-P1)
VE= 27P1+19-19P1 VE= 27P1+33-33P1
VE= 8P1+19 VE= -6P1+33

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si P1=1 VE=27


Si P1=0 VE=19 Si P1=0 VE=33

1 27 1 27
0 19 0 33

40

35

30
40

35

30

25 Strategy 1
Strategy 2
20 Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
15 Strategy 6

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

FOR THE ROW PLAYER

Strategy I Strategy II

P1+P2=1 Q1+Q2=1
P2=1-P1 Q2=1-Q1

VE= 27P1+33P2 VE= 19Q1+25Q2


VE= 27P1+33(1-P1) VE= 19Q1+25(1-Q1)
VE= 27P1+33-33P1 VE= 19Q1+25-25Q1
VE= -6P1+33 VE= -6Q1+25

Si P1=1 VE=27 Si Q1=1 VE=19


Si P1=0 VE=33 Si Q1=0 VE=25

1 27 1 19
0 33 0 25

40

35

30

25

Strategy I
20
Strategy II
40

35

30

25

Strategy I
20
Strategy II
Strategy III
15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

No se observa cruce de cada línea, por tanto, no existe un valor para el juego.
method:

ne of the players has only two strategies.

aphical method applied to matrices 2 x n or m x

Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1 P1+P2=1


P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1 P2=1-P1

VE= 33P1+25P2 VE= 33P1+37P2 VE=


VE= 33P1+25(1-P1) VE= 33P1+37(1-P1) VE=
VE= 33P1+25-25P1 VE= 33P1+37-37P1 VE=
VE= 8P1+25 VE= -4P1+37 VE=

Si P1=1 VE=33 Si P1=1 VE=33 Si P1=1


Si P1=0 VE=25 Si P1=0 VE=37 Si P1=0

1 33 1 33 1
0 25 0 37 0
La estrategia 5 tiene la pendiente más negativa

La estrategia 3 tiene la pendiente más positiva


Strategy 1
Strategy 2 8P1+25=-14P1+33
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
22P1=8
Strategy 5 P1=4/11
Strategy 6
P2=1-4/11
P2=7/11

VALOR DEL JUEGO

1 VE= 8P1+25 Esto quiere decir que, si


VE= 307/11 probabilidades de accione
ambos tendrán la posibilida
entonces u

Strategy III

Q1+Q2=1
Q2=1-Q1

VE= 33Q1+37Q2
VE= 33Q1+37(1-Q1)
VE= 33Q1+37-37Q1
VE= -4Q1+37

Si Q1=1 VE=33
Si Q1=0 VE=37

1 33
0 37

Strategy I
Strategy II
Strategy I
Strategy II
Strategy III

un valor para el juego.


Strategy 6

P1+P2=1
P2=1-P1

19P1+33P2 VE= 25P1+37P2


19P1+33(1-P1) VE= 25P1+37(1-P1)
19P1+33-33P1 VE= 25P1+37-37P1
-14P1+33 VE= -12P1+37

VE=19 Si P1=1 VE=25


VE=33 Si P1=0 VE=37

19 1 25
33 0 37
Esto quiere decir que, si ambos jugadores determinan las
probabilidades de acciones de cada uno de sus estrategias,
mbos tendrán la posibilidad de ganar 29/9. Esto representará
entonces un juego equilibrado.
Exercise 6. Optimum solution of two-person games (Theory of games, mixed stra

The games represent the latest case of lack of information where intelligent opponents are wo
conflicting environment. The result is that a very conservative criterion is generally proposed to

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80

PLAYER A
84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88

Solve the game of players A and B to determine the value of the game, using the proposed Ex
according to the data in table 6.

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80
PLAYER A

84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88
Minimax 87 87 91 89

Maximini and Minimax are equal, the answer is then 87


(Theory of games, mixed strategies):

ere intelligent opponents are working in a


criterion is generally proposed to solve sets of

91
82
84
88
81

e game, using the proposed Excel tool,

Maximini
91 80
82 82
84 78
88 87
81 35
91
Exercise 6. Optimum solution of two-person games (Theory of games, mixed stra

The games represent the latest case of lack of information where intelligent opponents are wo
conflicting environment. The result is that a very conservative criterion is generally proposed to

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80

PLAYER A
84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88

Solve the game of players A and B to determine the value of the game, using the proposed Ex
according to the data in table 6.

Columna1 Columna2 Columna3 Columna4 Columna5


PLAYER B
YER
PLA

81 83 81 80
A

84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88
Minimax 87 87 91 89

Maximini and Minimax are equal, the answer is then 87


(Theory of games, mixed strategies):

ere intelligent opponents are working in a


criterion is generally proposed to solve sets of

91
82
84
88
81

e game, using the proposed Excel tool,

Columna6 Columna7
Maximini
91
80
82 82
84 78
88 87
81 35
91
Exercise 6. Optimum solution of two-person games (Theory of games, mixed stra

The games represent the latest case of lack of information where intelligent opponents are wo
conflicting environment. The result is that a very conservative criterion is generally proposed to
two people and sum zero, called minimax - maximin criterion. To determine a fair game, the m
maximin, it is necessary to solve the stable strategy through the Solver.

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80
PLAYER A

84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88

Solve the game of players A and B to determine the value of the game, using the proposed Ex
according to the data in table 6.

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80
PLAYER A

84 83 86 86
82 78 86 89
87 87 91 89
83 85 35 88
Minimax 87 87 91 89

Como el valor Maximini y Minimax son iguales, la respuesta es entonc


(Theory of games, mixed strategies):

ere intelligent opponents are working in a


criterion is generally proposed to solve sets of
To determine a fair game, the minimax =
e Solver.

91
82
84
88
81

e game, using the proposed Excel tool,

Maximini
91 80
82 82
84 78
88 87
81 35
91

iguales, la respuesta es entonces 87.


Exercise 7. Use of the practical learning environment. Collaborative acti

Enter the Practical Environment, in this space videos are presented for the use of the Exce
and practical tutorials to develop the proposed activities, remember to attach screenshots t
collaborative work, the income and results table for the Exercises raised. In this same spac
carefully review the Guide for the use of educational resources.

The group leader must upload to the Evaluation and Monitoring Environment a single file in
consolidating the contributions of all the participants in the space named Task 2. Unit 2.

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

PLAYER B
J
Q1 0 U 81 83 81
Q2 0 G 84 83 86
Q3 0 A 82 78 86
Q4 1 D 87 87 91
Q5 0 O 83 85 35
R
Suma 1
MAXIMO 87 87 91

Vesp 87 87 91

Maxz=v 87
onment. Collaborative activity

ented for the use of the Excel Solver Plug-in


mber to attach screenshots to your final
es raised. In this same space you can
.

g Environment a single file in EXCEL format


ce named Task 2. Unit 2.

LAYER B Mini
80 91 80
86 82 82
89 84 78
89 88 87
88 81 35

89 91

89 88
BIBLIOGRAFIA

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 341-347), New Delhi:
Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the knowledge environment of the
course.

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 341-391), New Delhi:


Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1950625&lang=es&site=eds-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C

Pineda, R. (2019). Virtual learning object Unit 2. Decisions in an environment


of uncertainty. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://repository.unad.edu.co/handle/10596/30753
Kelly, A. (2003). Decision Making Using Game Theory: An Introduction for
Managers: Camdridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Editorial. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=120445&lang=es&site=eds-live.

Arsham, H. (2015). Decision Making Under Risk, USA: University of Baltimore Editorial.


Retrieved from http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/Business-stat/otherapplets/DaRisky.htm
347), New Delhi:
nment of the

391), New Delhi:

m/login.aspx?
=EB&ppid=pp_C

le/10596/30753

Editorial.
Risky.htm