比較他們在對手選擇不同策略時的收益
u(1,1) =50% < u(2,1) = 90% (對手選擇位置1時)
u(1,2) =10% < u(2,2) = 50% (對手選擇位置2時)
u(1,3) =15% < u(2,3) = 20%
u(1,4) =20% < u(2,4) = 25%
u(1,5) =25% < u(2,5) = 30%
u(1,6) =30% < u(2,6) = 35%
u(1,7) =35% < u(2,7) = 40%
u(1,8) =40% < u(2,8) = 45%
u(1,9) =45% < u(2,9) = 50%
u(1,10)=50% < u(2,10)=55%
此時2號位置是絕對優於1號位置的
再用同樣的方法比較2號位置和3號位置:strategy(2,*) versus strategy(3,*)
u(2,1) =90% > u(3,1) = 85%
u(2,2) =50% < u(3,2) = 80%
u(2,3) =20% < u(3,3) = 50%
u(2,4) =25% < u(3,4) = 30%
u(2,5) =30% < u(3,5) = 35%
u(2,6) =35% < u(3,6) = 40%
u(2,7) =40% < u(3,7) = 45%
u(2,8) =45% < u(3,8) = 50%
u(2,9) =50% < u(3,9) = 55%
u(2,10)=55% < u(3,10)=60%
此時,在對手選擇1號位置時,位置2是優於位置3的。所以3不是絕對優於2。
而在進行完第壹步的時候,把絕對劣戰略1剔除掉的話,就又回到了第壹步的情況,3就是絕對優於2的。
這是壹個叠代逐步剔除劣戰略的問題。