Eco competition! (1 Viewer)

[souljah888]

If you sat the exam, how'd you go?

 

[khfreakau]

Good life. I know for a fact that I got some of the harder questions right, which I'm pretty happy about, but some things were just ridiculous. Economic profits?!

 

[failwhale]

lol... what the hell was with question 40? was it some probability question? haha.

overall pretty happy....ish

 

[wishingstar]

It was negative marking o.o
I only did a few questions...

 

[khfreakau]

lol... what the hell was with question 40? was it some probability question? haha.

overall pretty happy....ish

Last three questions are game theory, I'm confident I got 39 but not entirely sure about 38 and 40.

 

[khfreakau]

It was negative marking o.o
I only did a few questions...

Opportunity cost of not doing questions is outweighed by the chance of getting them right

 

[Aindan]

I never did the economics competititon before and I certainly wasn't expecting anything like that...Though the game theory questions did give a nice think.

What did you guys get for Q40. I put that I wouldn't care for either 1st or 2nd but i'm not sure.
As for Q38, i'm pretty sure that the autioneer would make a loss and the bid would be below $10. I thought about it like this: If person A's last bid was $4 and Person B $4.50, then if person A raises the bid to 5, he stands to win $5 while losing $5. But person B will not raise to $5.50 because he stands to win $4.50 while losing his bid ($5.50) this is the spot where benefits outweights the cost. So the bid stops at $5 if they were perfectly rational meaning the autioneer gets a total $9.50 while giving $10. Thoughts?

 

[khfreakau]

I never did the economics competititon before and I certainly wasn't expecting anything like that...Though the game theory questions did give a nice think.

What did you guys get for Q40. I put that I wouldn't care for either 1st or 2nd but i'm not sure.
As for Q38, i'm pretty sure that the autioneer would make a loss and the bid would be below $10. I thought about it like this: If person A's last bid was $4 and Person B $4.50, then if person A raises the bid to 5, he stands to win $5 while losing $5. But person B will not raise to $5.50 because he stands to win $4.50 while losing his bid ($5.50) this is the spot where benefits outweights the cost. So the bid stops at $5 if they were perfectly rational meaning the autioneer gets a total $9.50 while giving $10. Thoughts?

Hmmmm, the problem with that is I think that there will still be a gain of +10 for the winner. Bidding at $5.50 would still yield a net gain of 4.50 for the winning bidder, and the one who is losing knows that by making another bid, they will be able to make a net gain. Since they were unable to cooperate, I would imagine that this would lead to a scenario where they would bid up until one bidder bids $10, making no net gain yet no net loss. If the losing bidder remains, they will lose $9.whatever. If the losing bidder bids again, they will lose $10.whatever but gain $10, effectively only losing a few cents. This would lead to the case where there is an increasing bid up until the point where the loss from bidding and winning is greater than that of the $9.whatever, at of which point there won't be a point to continue bidding. So, logically, the auctioneer would make a net profit, and the winning bid would be greater than $10.

What do you think?

 

[annarh-saur]

Some of the graphs in the competition I've never seen in my life D: and question 40 was just weird. I guessed it even though it said to 'avoid' it at the front of the booklet

 

[Aindan]

This would lead to the case where there is an increasing bid up until the point where the loss from bidding and winning is greater than that of the $9.whatever, at of which point there won't be a point to continue bidding.

I don't completely understand this statement.
I was thinking that once the bid went over $5, then each bidder would continually bid up the price indefinately until they ran out of their finite supply of money as each party would try to make a net gain and eventually to minimise their losses by continually bidding higher and higher.

The question is, would the person B bid $5.50 in the first place? As you said he has the OPPORTUNITY to gain $4.50, YET he also puts $5.50 on the line, i think that's what the question was asking, rational economic behaviour is evaluating risks, you only take the chance if the action favours you. But i'm not sure anymore

 

[khfreakau]

I don't completely understand this statement.
I was thinking that once the bid went over $5, then each bidder would continually bid up the price indefinately until they ran out of their finite supply of money as each party would try to make a net gain and eventually to minimise their losses by continually bidding higher and higher.

The question is, would the person B bid $5.50 in the first place? As you said he has the OPPORTUNITY to gain $4.50, YET he also puts $5.50 on the line, i think that's what the question was asking, rational economic behaviour is evaluating risks, you only take the chance if the action favours you. But i'm not sure anymore

Hopefully the image illustrates. The red line is your loss if you bid and lose, the black line is your loss if you bid and win. You can see that, when you bid 20 and win, your loss is equal to the loss of bidding 20 and losing, so if you bid above that point, then you make a greater loss than what you would have done just leaving it like that.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Was there a different paper for Yr 11s compared to Yr 12s or just one senior paper (11+12)?

 

[Aindan]

So you are saying that if you bet 20 and lose the bet you will only lose 10? I thought the game was if you lost the bet, the auctioneer would take the amount you bet. So the graph should just be 2 parallel straight lines with if you lose y = x, and if you win y = x - 10. :x

 

[b00m]

wow i never knew there was an eco competition

 

[failwhale]

Hmmmm, the problem with that is I think that there will still be a gain of +10 for the winner. Bidding at $5.50 would still yield a net gain of 4.50 for the winning bidder, and the one who is losing knows that by making another bid, they will be able to make a net gain. Since they were unable to cooperate, I would imagine that this would lead to a scenario where they would bid up until one bidder bids $10, making no net gain yet no net loss. If the losing bidder remains, they will lose $9.whatever. If the losing bidder bids again, they will lose $10.whatever but gain $10, effectively only losing a few cents. This would lead to the case where there is an increasing bid up until the point where the loss from bidding and winning is greater than that of the $9.whatever, at of which point there won't be a point to continue bidding. So, logically, the auctioneer would make a net profit, and the winning bid would be greater than $10.

What do you think?

yeah t'is what i thought

 

[khfreakau]

So you are saying that if you bet 20 and lose the bet you will only lose 10? I thought the game was if you lost the bet, the auctioneer would take the amount you bet. So the graph should just be 2 parallel straight lines with if you lose y = x, and if you win y = x - 10. :x

The game was that if you lost, you lost the amount you bet and got nothing back, if you won, you lose the amount you bet but gain 10.

 

[khfreakau]

So you are saying that if you bet 20 and lose the bet you will only lose 10? I thought the game was if you lost the bet, the auctioneer would take the amount you bet. So the graph should just be 2 parallel straight lines with if you lose y = x, and if you win y = x - 10. :x

My diagram is bad, you are correct. But it illustrates the point all the same, if the players are aiming to minimise their losses, they will not bid above 20, since from that point onwards, the more they bid, the more they lose.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

I did it today, and I only knew like 5 of the questions with certainty :S As long as I don't get a negative score right haha.