Chevron Left
Retour à Théorie des jeux

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

4,044 évaluations
816 avis

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 :

751 - 775 sur 807 Avis pour Théorie des jeux

par Łukasz W

17 déc. 2016

The course is very interesting and challenging but there are mistakes in the videos and too much mathematical theory with relation to examples.

par Patid

25 juin 2020

There are very few examples and sample of calculation cause make it so hard to understand the lesson (especially in week6,7 ).

par Nithya N

19 déc. 2016

The examples are getting very abstract. It is getting difficult to understand the concepts with the examples explained.

par Vladimir F

27 mars 2018

Not all explanations were clear to me, for example the core and Shapley value I took additional materials from web.

par Piyush R

30 août 2016

The games needs to be explained in sufficient details. In addition, after a point in time, it became too technical.

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


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 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 Do H A

15 sept. 2021

It's harder than my expectation.


21 sept. 2021

Not very hard to pass it.

par Jingxin Z

19 oct. 2018

a little bit confusing