Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.

Buy Used
$4.68
+ $3.99 shipping
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by loudavis
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: HARDCOVER, U. Michigan 1966. Text unmarked. Binding tight. No jacket
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Two-person game theory;: The essential ideas (Ann Arbor science paperbacks)

5 out of 5 stars 1 customer review

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Price
New from Used from

Top 20 lists in Books
Top 20 lists in Books
View the top 20 best sellers of all time, the most reviewed books of all time and some of our editors' favorite picks. Learn more
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE


Product Details

  • Series: Ann Arbor science paperbacks
  • Paperback: 229 pages
  • Publisher: University of Michigan Press (1969)
  • Language: English
  • ASIN: B0007G1G96
  • Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #15,910,760 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

5 star
100%
4 star
0%
3 star
0%
2 star
0%
1 star
0%
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I am just getting around to reading this book. The "Two-Person Game Theory" is the 1st of a 2 part set. The 2nd book is "N-Person Game Theory" which was given to me first. I am reading these in reverse order. I recommend reading "Two-Person Game Theory" first. The author, Anatol Rapoport is very clear and illustrative in his exposition. This is a great read.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse