Advertisement

Elicitation of expectations using Colonel Blotto

  • Ronald Peeters
  • Leonard Wolk
Original Paper
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

We develop a mechanism based on the Colonel Blotto game to elicit (subjective) expectations in a group-based manner. In this game, two players allocate resources over possible future events. A fixed prize is awarded based on the amounts the players allocate to the realized event. We consider two payoff variations: under the proportional-prize rule, the award is split proportionally to the resources that players allocate to the realized event; under the winner-takes-all rule, the full award is given to the player who allocate the most resources to the realized event. When probabilities by which events realize are common knowledge to the players, both games are Bayesian–Nash incentive compatible in the sense that (expected) equilibrium allocations perfectly reflect the true realization probabilities. By means of a laboratory experiment, we find that in a setting where realization probabilities are common knowledge the game with the proportional-prize rule (Prop) elicits better distributions compared to both the winner-takes-all variation (Win) and a benchmark mechanism based on an individual-based proper scoring rule (Ind). Without common knowledge of realization probabilities Prop is at least as good as Ind, showing that it is possible to use a game to elicit expectations in a similar fashion to using a proper scoring rule.

Keywords

Colonel Blotto Expectation elicitation Experiment Behavioral mechanism design 

JEL Classification

C72 C92 D83 D84 

Supplementary material

10683_2018_9596_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1511 KB)

References

  1. Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 478–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avrahami, J., & Kareev, Y. (2009). Do the weak stand a chance? Distribution of resources in a competitive environment. Cognitive Science, 33, 940–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avrahami, J., Kareev, Y., Todd, P. M., & Silverman, B. (2014). Allocation of resources in asymmetric competitions: How do the weak maintain a chance of winning? Journal of Economic Psychology, 42, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillon, A. (2017). Bayesian markets to elicit private information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7958–7962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birgé, L. (1986). On estimating a density using Hellinger distance and some other strange facts. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 71(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, J., Holmes, J., & Matthews, P. H. (2008). Charity auctions: A field experiment. Economic Journal, 118(525), 92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho, A. (2016). An overview of applications of proper scoring rules. Decision Analysis, 13(4), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, K.-Y., & Plott, C. R. (2002). Information aggregation mechanisms: Concept, design and implementation for a sales forecasting problem. New York City: Mimeo, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Chowdhury, S., Kovenock, D., & Sheremeta, R. (2013). An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games. Economic Theory, 52(3), 833–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowgill, B., Wolfers, J., & Zitzewitz, E. (2009). Using prediction markets to track information flows: Evidence from Google. New York City: Mimeo, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Duffy, J., & Matros, A. (2017). Stochastic asymmetric Blotto games: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 139, 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreber, A., Pfeiffer, T., Almenberg, J., Isaksson, S., Wilson, B., Chen, Y., et al. (2015). Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), 15343–15347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Figlewski, S. (1979). Subjective information and market efficiency in a betting market. Journal of Political Economy, 87(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbacher, U. (2007). zTree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsythe, R., Nelson, F., Neumann, G. R., & Wright, R. (1992). Anatomy of an experimental political stock market. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1142–1161.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, L. (1958). Game-theory models in the allocation of advertising expenditures. Operations Research, 6(5), 699–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillen, B. J., Plott, C. R., & Shum, M. (2017). A pari-mutuel-like mechanism for information aggregation: A field test inside Intel. Journal of Political Economy, 125(4), 1075–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross, O. (1950). The symmetric Blotto game. RAND RM-2242. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, G. W., Martinez-Correa, J., Swarthout, J. T., & Ulm, E. R. (2017). Scoring rules for subjective probability distributions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134, 430–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellinger, E. (1909). Neue Begründung der Theorie quadratischer Formen von unendlichvielen Veränderlichen. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 136, 210–271.Google Scholar
  23. Kovenock, D., & Roberson, B. (2015). Generalizations of the General Lotto and Colonel Blotto games. Working paper.Google Scholar
  24. Laslier, J. F. (2002). How two-party competition treats minorities. Review of Economic Design, 7(3), 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). A truth serum for non-Bayesians: Correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1461–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peeters, R., & Wolk, L. (2017). Eliciting interval beliefs: An experimental study. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0175163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plott, C. R., Wit, J., & Yang, W. C. (2003). Parimutuel betting markets as information aggregation devices: Experimental results. Economic Theory, 22(3), 311–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306(5695), 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robson, A. (2005). Multi-item contests. Working paper.Google Scholar
  31. Thaler, R., & Ziemba, W. T. (1988). Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas, C. D. (2018). \(N\)-dimensional Blotto games with heterogeneous battlefield values. Economic Theory, 65(3), 509–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhou, X., Yu, K., Zhang, T., & Huang, T. S. (2010). Image classification using super-vector coding of local image descriptors. ECCV 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6315, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of FinanceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations