Chevron Left
Retour à Théorie des jeux

Avis et commentaires pour d'étudiants pour Théorie des jeux par Université de Stanford

4.6
étoiles
4,312 évaluations

À propos du cours

Popularized by movies such as "A Beautiful Mind," game theory is the mathematical modeling of strategic interaction among rational (and irrational) agents. Beyond what we call `games' in common language, such as chess, poker, soccer, etc., it includes the modeling of conflict among nations, political campaigns, competition among firms, and trading behavior in markets such as the NYSE. How could you begin to model keyword auctions, and peer to peer file-sharing networks, without accounting for the incentives of the people using them? The course will provide the basics: representing games and strategies, the extensive form (which computer scientists call game trees), Bayesian games (modeling things like auctions), repeated and stochastic games, and more. We'll include a variety of examples including classic games and a few applications. You can find a full syllabus and description of the course here: http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/GTOC-Syllabus.html There is also an advanced follow-up course to this one, for people already familiar with game theory: https://www.coursera.org/learn/gametheory2/ You can find an introductory video here: http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/Intro_Networks.mp4...

Meilleurs avis

WY

16 mai 2017

Great ! Interesting and abound at the same time. Hope Professors will clarify the strategic utility function more clearly because it's hard for students with poor math basic(forget most><) right now!

SC

7 févr. 2022

I would have preferred a more mathematically rigorous treatment of the subject. Nevertheless, this was a great course — the instructors expounded all concepts with exceptional clarity and engagement.

Filtrer par :

801 - 825 sur 855 Avis pour Théorie des jeux

par Zhiheng

27 sept. 2016

The topic and the class content itself are good, but the introduction is too brief. Hope they can add more stuff!

par Josh K

2 juin 2017

Not enough application to remain interesting throughout - disconnect between calculus and concepts.

par Ignacio B

2 nov. 2019

Some clases are not fluid and concepts could be explained in a clearer way.

par Tiago A M

5 déc. 2016

I think it would be more easy to understand the concepts with more examples

par Mike L

12 janv. 2021

The lectures do not give enough examples.

Some lectures are hard to follow.

par Aniruddha M

5 avr. 2020

Doesn't engage the students much. Typical monotonous lectures.

par Abdul W M

25 avr. 2020

The course could have been designed better instructionally

par 赵祺

7 juin 2017

视频correction的地方太多,有些知识点没有b描述得hen'qing很清晰,整体课程质量中上

par Muhammad S

3 déc. 2020

More examples should be covered during lectures

par Abhishek

13 avr. 2020

More reading resources could have been provided

par Jennifer

23 nov. 2019

useful information. The math was over my head

par Arsh S

6 août 2022

Mathematical concepts are not explained well.

par paridhi m

18 déc. 2020

explanation of topics could have been better

par Elihu S

21 nov. 2016

tricky concepts and long equations yet fun

par Raphael T

6 janv. 2019

quite slack, it lacks scientific rigor

par Loo W M

25 nov. 2016

Lecturer not conversant with subject.

par ank j

13 janv. 2021

good but needs more example practice

par Faya M F A

12 janv. 2021

Somehow I only understand from Matt.

par Hồng Á Đ

15 sept. 2021

It's harder than my expectation.

par ROHIT S

21 sept. 2021

Not very hard to pass it.

par Jingxin Z

19 oct. 2018

a little bit confusing

par Josh T

11 juil. 2020

The examples with the tables and trees and calculations (i.e. the stuff on the problem sets and quizzes) were all fine, though during lecture there should have been far more examples worked through. And problem sets should be: 1or2 problems (max), then explanation in between, then another problem or two, etc... not just one big set with answers explained at the end. Students need a chance to learn from mistakes! But still, I'd give four stars if that were the whole issue. But the real issue was with the presentation of the theory (all the formal definition stuff - and there was a whole lot of that.) It was not done well. Very difficult to follow and even more difficult to connect to the real world examples, which were far easier to follow than the theory. My eyes glazed over often during those more formal parts of the lectures. And there were so many mistakes, both mis-spoken in the lectures and on the written slides and even on the problem set and quiz answers (confusing typos, not actual wrong answers) . Many of the lecture mistakes were caught and rectified using side notes, but that didn't help matters when one was already having trouble grasping concepts and vocabulary and such. Why not just re-record those sections without mistakes? And why not correct all the written issues? Left wanting, in the end...

par Grace L

9 août 2020

For those lacking the fluency of mathematical notation and definitions, many will find this course difficult. Primarily, I think my main bafflement is why this course is severely lacking in intuitive examples and easy-to follow explanations. The instructional format/style of 2 of the 3 (not you, Matt) stereotypical, ivory-towered math-savvy academics has not been well-developed to overcome the Curse of Knowledge, perpetuating the inaccessibility of the material for public knowledge. A bit disappointing. I basically had to supplement the entire course with more approachable lectures (go check out Yale's fantastic lectures on the topic - an example of instruction at its finest) to really gain an understanding of game theory's implications, an aspect virtually completely sacrificed to make room for all of holy symbols and rituals of formal notation.

par NIKHIL K

25 mars 2017

For a beginner, it is a fair start but definitely many things could have been better. The course does cover the main subject concepts in fair amount of depth and with decent rigor. The course videos are sometimes kind of less engaging. Many a times I felt my interest waning off. Many a times, the mathematical equations looked daunting. I think more focus should be put on including more number of real world examples and solving them within the videos.

Also, the concept of three Professors for one course was hard to digest, which led to the whole course feeling discontinuous and disconnected at several instances.

par Stephen C

17 avr. 2020

This course has interesting concepts. But I found Yoav Shohan to be extremely difficult to follow. He skips points which would connect one thought to another and does not explain other things clearly. I had to go over his lectures several times each week to be able to understand what he was trying to convey. He should be teaching only more advanced courses. The other 2 instructors were engaging and much clearer. But they could not compensate for Dr. Shahan's negative impact. (for me). I have completed many coursera courses, but I dropped out of this one after Week 3.