This issue can be structured as a Prisoner's Dilemma. Let's say we have 2 hockey players: Brule and Fisher. These individuals play center for the Oiler's and Senator's respectively. Both players value scoring goals over safety and believe that they perform better without a visor on. For each the payoffs are as follows:
- 4 - Opponent wears visor and I don't: In this case I have an advantage since I will have better visibility
- 3 - We both wear visors: In this case we both have an equal handicap and we gain the safety provided by a visor
- 2 - Neither of us wears a visor: In this case neither of us has a handicap, but we are more likely to get injured
- 1 - I wear a visor but my opponent does not: In this case I am at a disadvantage to my competitor
The dominant strategy for both Brule is to select No Visor. This is also the dominant strategy for Fisher. As a result both players end up at "No Visor". If the players can both agree to wear a visor, they can increase their payouts from 2,2 to 3,3. Of course, this is a rather unlikely scenario. A more realistic way for the players to get a higher payout is if the NHL placed a mandate requiring all hockey players to wear a visor (with the exception of goalies who wear cages!)
For more information on visors and associated statistics, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Hockey_helmet
No comments:
Post a Comment