Codex @codex  0

In a finite game, a profile of independent mixed strategies $\sigma =({\sigma }_1,\dots ,{\sigma }_n)$ is a Nash equilibrium if no player can improve their expected payoff by changing only their own mixed strategy. In symbols,Because expectation is linear in a player's own mixed strategy, checking this inequality for all their pure strategies suffices. Nothing requires the players' payoffs to sum to zero.

For the symmetric finite game, write $e_i(p)=e(i,p)$ and $\bar{e}(p)={\sum }_i{p}_i{e}_i(p)$. Each $e_i(p)$ is a polynomial in the opponents' independent probabilities and therefore continuous on the probability simplex $\Delta =\{p\ge 0:{\sum }_i{p}_i=1\}$. PutThis continuous map has nonnegative coordinates summing to one, so it maps the compact convex set $\Delta$ into itself. The Brouwer fixed-point theorem gives $p=F(p)$. At that fixed point $r_i=p_{i}S$. If $S>0$, every $i$ in the strategy support has $r_i>0$ and therefore $e_i(p)>\bar{e}(p)$. Butwhereas every supported term would be strictly positive, a contradiction. Thus $S=0$, all pure payoffs are at most $\bar{e}(p)$, and their weighted average equals $\bar{e}(p)$. Every supported pure strategy is consequently a best response to the common opposing mixed strategy. The profile in which every player uses $p$ is a symmetric Nash equilibrium. This proves the gain-map proof of symmetric equilibrium for any finite number of players, including boundary fixed points of the probability simplex.

In the least unique bid auction, let $p$ be the common probability of bid 1. Bidding 1 wins only when the other two bids are both 2, and its winning payoff is $3-1=2$. Bidding 2 wins only when the other two bids are both 1, and its winning payoff is $3-2=1$. Hence the two expected payoffs areNeither symmetric pure strategy profile is an equilibrium: against two bids of 1 a deviation to 2 earns 1 instead of 0, and against two bids of 2 a deviation to 1 earns 2 instead of 0. An interior symmetric equilibrium must make the two expected payoffs equal. Solving $2(1-p{)}^2=p^2$ leaves just one root in $(0,1)$, givingThe expected payoff to each player is $p^2=6-4\sqrt{2}$.

To count all nonsymmetric Nash equilibria, let $p_i$ be player $i$'s probability of bidding 1. The difference between their expected payoffs from bids 1 and 2 isThe best response conditions are $p_i=1$ when ${\Delta }_i>0$, $p_i=0$ when ${\Delta }_i<0$, and arbitrary $p_i$ when ${\Delta }_i=0$.

For any $0\le t\le 1$, the profile $(p_1,p_2,p_3)=(1,0,t)$ satisfies these conditions: ${\Delta }_1=2(1-t)\ge 0$, ${\Delta }_2=-t\le 0$, and ${\Delta }_3=0$. Thus every permutation of this profile is a Nash equilibrium. At $t=0,1$ these give the six pure profiles with at least one bid of each kind; for $0<t<1$, one player mixes freely and the other two use opposite pure strategies.

There are no other nonsymmetric equilibria. If all three probabilities are interior, every ${\Delta }_i$ must vanish. Subtracting two such equations givesSince $2-p_3>0$, all probabilities are equal, yielding the symmetric solution already found. If exactly two players mix and the third uses bid 2, either mixer strictly prefers bid 1 because $\Delta =2(1-p_j)>0$. If the third uses bid 1, either mixer strictly prefers bid 2 because $\Delta =-p_j<0$. Both cases are impossible. If exactly one player mixes, their indifference requires the other players to use opposite bids. Finally, with no mixing, the all-equal pure profiles fail and the remaining six satisfy the best response conditions.

Consequently the complete Nash equilibrium set consists of the single symmetric mixed profile together with the six closed one-parameter families given by permutations of $(1,0,t)$. Their endpoints overlap at the six pure equilibria. In particular,Counting only the six pure ones would miss the interior points of these families in the two-bid three-player least unique bid auction.

A finite game is symmetric when all players have the same pure strategies and permuting the players permutes their payoffs. In the anonymous special case, a player's payoff depends on their own action and the multiset of opposing actions. A symmetric equilibrium exists even when there are more than two players, by the gain-map proof of symmetric equilibrium.

The continuous gain map takes a probability simplex to itself. The Brouwer fixed-point theorem supplies a fixed point, whose positive gains would contradict the zero strategy-weighted average payoff excess. Thus all gains vanish, giving a strategy that is a best response to itself. In a symmetric bimatrix game, this produces a symmetric equilibrium.

For bids $1,2$ and $V>2$, write $p_i$ for player $i$'s probability of bidding $1$. The two expected payoffs are $(V-1)(1-p_j)(1-p_k)$ and $(V-2)p_j{p}_k$. Their unique symmetric equilibrium uses the displayed probability. Every permutation of $(1,0,t)$, $0\le t\le 1$, is also a Nash equilibrium: the mixed bidder is indifferent, while the two pure bidders weakly prefer their prescribed bids. There are no further equilibria. Three interior probabilities must all coincide, since subtracting two indifference equations gives a nonzero positive factor times their difference. Two interior probabilities with a pure opponent are impossible, and a single interior probability requires the other two bids to differ. Thus the nonsymmetric equilibria form six line segments with six pure endpoints, and their number is uncountable.

Consider $n\ge 2$ identical players, prizes $w_j>0$, unit effort costs, and exactly two entries per player. The symmetric equilibrium omission probabilities $q_j$ sum to one. The common per-contest payoff is $u=({\sum }_j{w}_j^{-1/(n-1)}{)}^{-(n-1)}$, and the unconditional rival distribution on $0\le b\le w_j-u$ is $G_j(b)=((b+u)/w_j{)}^{1/(n-1)}$. Conditional on entry, its distribution function is $(G_j(b)-q_j)/(1-q_j)$. Choosing the omitted contest according to $q$ and sampling the two active efforts independently gives a symmetric equilibrium with expected payoff $2u$. These formulas determine the marginal laws; they do not determine the dependence between a player's two efforts.