Q50) In the first game Not enter is the optimal strategy since in it both the players payoffs are maximized as compared to (-1,1)..so (0,6) is the equilibrium position.
Now consider the second game in the form of expanded strategies..in this case (3,3) is the Nash Equilibrium.
(Enter, Hawk) is not a Nash Equilibrium because if player 2 plays Hawk, player 1 will be better off when he chooses "Not Enter", so clearly it is not a Nash Equilibrium.
Similarly you will get that (Enter, Dove) is the only Nash Equilibrium where the payoff is (3,3). Now compare the equilibrium outcome of this expanded set of strategies i.e (3,3) and the equilibrium for contracted set of strategies i.e. (0,6).
Clearly in (3,3) is beneficial for player 1 as compared to (0,6) but for player 2 it is not beneficial as he is getting less payoff in (3,3) as compared to (0,6), so the expanded set of strategies may or may not be beneficial.
we can rule out options b,c,d as they are absolute statements, however the result is comparative. Option a seems to be the best choice as the statement suggests that eliminating a strategy may be beneficial i.e. in (0,6), player 2 is better off as compared to (3,3) but player 2 is not beneficial as he is getting 0 as compared to 3 in expanded strategies.
"I don't ride side-saddle. I'm as straight as a submarine"
Locked
