Chevron Left
Retour à Théorie des jeux

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

4,115 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: There is also an advanced follow-up course to this one, for people already familiar with game theory: You can find an introductory video here:

Meilleurs avis


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.


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!

Filtrer par :

726 - 750 sur 822 Avis pour Théorie des jeux

par Roland R

29 nov. 2017

Good course for

par Antariksha M

8 sept. 2019

Great Learning

par Sarotree P

10 mars 2018

good content

par Marcela

29 sept. 2017

Good course.

par Peter Z

15 févr. 2017

Good Course

par Jukka A

30 nov. 2021

I enjoyed!

par Vandana B

30 juil. 2021


par 1089

24 sept. 2016

Not bad!

par Juan C

30 sept. 2019


par 李怡

13 juil. 2017


par amadie g

20 sept. 2021


par Andrew Z

19 mai 2018

This could be a good course but some of the instruction is severely lacking. One of the instructors really seems to be phoning it in... in one module he provides two videos, where one is the exact same as the other except an additional minute of material. In another he teaches the exact same material as a different instructor (same slides and all).

Be prepared to spend more time on YouTube watching videos than on the lectures here. After the first few weeks the lectures simply do not prepare you to answer the problem sets (which often contain grammatically confused questions which may or may not change the answer).

All in all the material is very interesting and two of the instructors do a very good job explaining mathematical notation. I would say it would be very helpful to have an understanding of set theory and mathematical notation... there is very little heavy math required. If you understand a few calculus concepts (like limits) the number crunching portion isn't very taxing.

par Arthur S

18 sept. 2019

Not a bad course. I enjoyed a lot of the content but personally I work best with many practice examples to build an intuition of the concepts. This was unfortunately lacking across all the weeks in my opinion, several different topics were covered each week with each having only one or two practice examples.

As a result I think that I completed many of the weeks without having a deep understanding of a lot of the content. The areas that I did have a good understanding of were supplemented by external resources on youtube, quora etc. These explained the concepts in a more intuitive way than digging into the algebra which much of this course is.

I think that if more practice examples had been provided as a supplement or if more in video quizzes and longer test sets were present I would have given this a four or five but I was not blown away by the course in it's current iteration.

par Mattias G

10 juin 2020

I attended Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course recently here on Coursera and thought it was really brilliant. Thought this concept of online learning is really promising and good way for free education at ones own initiative. I had hoped that this course in Game Theory would offer the same experience. But unfortunately I must say that I had expected a better experience. To learn it is required a lot of repetition with examples that are easy to follow. I think that is the missing point in this course in comparison to Andrew Ng's course. All credit to the three professor lecturers who have prepared the video clips for these classes, but if the ambition would have been a little bit higher, the value would have been much bigger.

par Felipe O G C B

5 sept. 2016

In my opinion, it gets too technical and it is not a self contained course at all. Neither it is a beginner course for game theory. If someone is looking to understand the real basics of it, should take the Univeristy of Tokyo course. Some lessons were really abstract and I ended up looking for information in other websites to understand it. Another thing... I suppose the three lecturers are incredible good in their respective fields, but in the teaching part, Some Shoham's lessons were like listening to a robot. M. O Jackson is pretty clear in his explanations altough too technical, and Leyton Brown has a very clear way to teach, but I honestly got lost many times in the final exercises.

par Arshaan S

4 sept. 2020

It was way too heavy into math. I find it covered a lot less theory than Game Theory should. Sure, I did learn a lot, but they did not explain it the best at times, and frequently I had no idea how to apply what I just learned. I got a 10% on the final exam first try. I'm a smart kid, straight A's, taking all honors and ap's, so this isn't something that happens often. In fact, this is the first time I've gotten a score that low. This really goes to show I didn't learn well from this course, and unless you only think of things from a logical standpoint and math, this may not be the best course for you.

par Diogo C

26 juin 2018

I was looking for something that covered more material, as I was already familiar with many of the concepts. This is simply a matter of expectation, however, and not entirely the course's fault.I feel like the math was given with little to no explanation. More attention should be given there, at the very least to point to where the formulas come from and how to derive similar ones.Finally, the exercises, while definitely helpful!, could have been more general and difficult, to force people to seek for the answers instead of just following rote calculations blindly following the class.

par Bernd K

21 juin 2022

I successfully completed the course in 3 days. It is based on the mathematical foundations found in any game theory book. The book by Leyton-Brown, Shoham Essentials of Game Theory is given as a bibliography. The course is divided into 7 chapters and each chapter has 2 quizzes and in the 8th chapter comes the final test. The course is of intermediate difficulty and is suitable for anyone with an interest in brain teasers. The videos about the technical implementation are not necessary

par George C

1 nov. 2017

The lectures were great and averaging an hour of lecture per week, the instructors were able to incorporate a lot of material. The only problem was the equations they used were never explained thoroughly enough to my learning style. I wish there were more resources to the equations and understanding the symbols associated with Game Theory. Finally, it would be great if the quizzes incorporated more conceptual questions versus strictly computational.

par Vadym B

23 oct. 2017

Generally a good course, but unfortunately some terms were given in a really obscure way. Therefore had to look for better clarifications on other resources. In addition, some procedures in terms of resolution for exercises were provided badly. Thus I found myself pausing a video and trying to guess where came one value from and where it went afterwards and it turnued out to that one and so on...

par Zijian

30 mai 2020

Great course except Yoav Shoham's lectures. He definitely didn't spend much time on preparing it. His lecture is full of "Err...Emm...Arr", and sometimes he speaks out conflict information compare to the slides. In week 4 he has two lectures but they are actually one, the second one contains the first one in its first 9 minutes.

Again, great course, the other two instructors are fantastic.

par Rishabh D S

7 nov. 2019

The teachers and fantastic and the content is great. I am grateful to Coursera, Stanford University and the professors to provide this interesting course of Game Theory. To just enumerate a downside to this course is that at some points the teaching methods of the professors become uninteresting and also there is better explanation for concepts available on the internet.

par Leo W

30 juin 2021

Interesting topic, but some of the lectures can get a bit dull and drag on. I think more connections to real life applications of the content would have made it more interesting too. The problem sets were pretty fun to think through and I enjoyed the problem solving and logic aspects of it. Overall pretty decent course, although not too useful for real life.

par Deleted A

6 févr. 2018

The material presented in the lectures was almost entirely conceptual (which is fine), but often the material in the problem sets required applications that hadn't been explained in the lecture, which was quite frustrating and I think counter-productive to learning. But the lectures were good (although I didn't like the one on complexity theory)!

par Arcangel M

5 juil. 2017

Me ha parecido un curso introductorio para gente que ya conoce bastante de teoría de juegos. Me parece que se introducen los conceptos de forma poco ordenada y con ejemplos complicados. El contenido matemático se introduce de golpe. Sería interesante más desarrollo desde el comienzo o dejarlo de lado en un anexo si no se va a explicar en detalle.