
META TOPICPARENT 
name="Errata" 
Chapter 5: Games with Sequential Actions: Reasoning and Computing with the Extensive Form
 Page number: 115
 Section number:5.1.2
 Content: In Definition 5.1.2, pure strategies as defined are products of the set of all actions available at all choice nodes owned by a player, rather than products of actions available at all chocie nodes owned by a player. To correct this, change $\prod_{h \in H, \rho(h = i)} \chi(h)$ to $\prod_{h \in H, \rho(h) = i, a \in \chi(h)} a$

> > 
 Page number: 139
 Section number:5.2.4
 Date:5/5/2020
 Name:Brian Lunday
 Email: brian[dot]lunday[at]afit[dot]edu
 Content:In Definition 5.2.10 (Sequential equilibrium), in the first condition, the limit should be as "m > \infty'' instead of ''n> \infty".
 Page number: 139
 Section number:5.2.4
 Date:5/5/2020
 Name: Brian Lunday
 Email: brian[dot]lunday[at]afit[dot]edu
 Content:In Definition 5.2.10 (Sequential equilibrium), in the second condition, the right hand side of the inequality should reference index the alternative strategy s' for player i, writing it as s'_i.


 Page number:136142
 Section number:5.2.3
 Date:4/4/2014
 Name:Haden Lee
 Email:haden[dot]lee[at]stanford[dot]edu
 Content:After Definition 5.2.8 (until the end of section 5.2.3), the book keeps using "I" to refer to a certain information set in "I_i" (for player i), but earlier in the book in Definition 5.2.1 the book defined I to be the tuple of the information sets of n players (namely, I = (I_1, I_2, ..., I_n)). This may lead to a huge change, but just to be consistent with the rest of the chapter, it might be wise to call it "I_{i, j}" or "I_{i, k}" (or such) instead of just "I".
The following errors are fixed in the second printing of the book and online PDF v1.1
 Page number: 144
 Section number: 5.2.4
 Date: 11/26/08
 Name: James Wright
 Email: jrwright@csDELETEthisTEXT.ubc.ca
 Content: Theorem 5.2.12 should read "In extensiveform games of perfect information, the set of subgameperfect equilibria is exactly the set of sequential equilibria," and footnote 9 should be removed. (The issue with genericity arises only under games of imperfect information.)
 Page number: 132
 Section number: 5.2.2
 Date: Feb 10, 2009
 Name: Sean Sutherland
 Email: ssuther(at) cs.ubc.ca
 Content: The paragraph beginning "We illustrate this distinction first..." should be removed. We discussed that it could be misleading about the differences between behavioral and mixed strategies, while not really contributing something worthwhile. One point was that it doesn't mention that correlations in mixed strategies only occur offpath.
 Page number: 125
 Section number: 5.1.5
 Date:May 13, 2009
 Name: Grigorios Tsoumakas
 Email: greg@csdDELETEthisTEXT.auth.gr
 Content:"from the root of the tree up to the root" should be "from the leaves of the tree up to the root"
 Page number: 133
 Section number:5.2.3
 Date:Feb19, 2010
 Name B.J.Buter
 Email: bjbuter [at] science [dot] uva [dot] nl
 Content: Definition 5.2.3, using n as a counter is confusing since in other definitions n indicates the number of players.
 Page number: 130
 Section number:5.2.1
 Date:Feb 18, 2010
 Name: B.J.Buter
 Email: bjbuter [at] science [dot] uva [dot] nl
 Content: Definition 5.2.1 "I=..., equivalence relation" is not an equivalence relation. An equivalence relation is a collection of ordered pairs, thus if I_{i,j} were a relation, then where h \in I_{i,j} is written, h should be an ordered pair, this is not meant. I would rewrite as:"I=(I_1,...,I_n), where I_i={I_{i,1},...,I_{i,k_i}} is a partition of \{h\in H : \rho(h) = i\}, with I_{i,j} equivalence classes."
 Page number: 133
 Section number:5.2.3
 Date:Feb19, 2010
 Name B.J.Buter
 Email: bjbuter [at] science [dot] uva [dot] nl
 Content: Definition 5.2.3, item 2 equivalence classes are only defined for nodes where a player acts, according to definition 5.2.1. The restriction if \rho(h_j)=i should be added.
 Page number: 137138
 Section number:5.2.4
 Date:Feb 27, 2010
 Name:Nicolas Lambert
 Content:All instances of S should be replaced by s for consistency with the rest of the book.
 KevinLeytonBrown  13 Nov 2008 