Apr 24, 2020
This is a really helpful course which provides me with a basic understanding of game theory, its applications and ways to solve certain games. Huge thanks to the professors who made these recordings.
May 17, 2017
Great ! Interesting and abound at the same time. Hope Professors will clarify the strategic utility function more clearly because it's hard for students with poor math basic(forget most><) right now!
автор: Lukasz W•
Dec 17, 2016
The course is very interesting and challenging but there are mistakes in the videos and too much mathematical theory with relation to examples.
Jun 25, 2020
There are very few examples and sample of calculation cause make it so hard to understand the lesson (especially in week6,7 ).
автор: Nithya N•
Dec 19, 2016
The examples are getting very abstract. It is getting difficult to understand the concepts with the examples explained.
автор: Vladimir F•
Mar 27, 2018
Not all explanations were clear to me, for example the core and Shapley value I took additional materials from web.
автор: Piyush R•
Aug 30, 2016
The games needs to be explained in sufficient details. In addition, after a point in time, it became too technical.
Sep 27, 2016
The topic and the class content itself are good, but the introduction is too brief. Hope they can add more stuff!
автор: Josh K•
Jun 02, 2017
Not enough application to remain interesting throughout - disconnect between calculus and concepts.
автор: Ignacio B•
Nov 02, 2019
Some clases are not fluid and concepts could be explained in a clearer way.
автор: Tiago A M•
Dec 05, 2016
I think it would be more easy to understand the concepts with more examples
автор: Aniruddha M•
Apr 05, 2020
Doesn't engage the students much. Typical monotonous lectures.
автор: Abdul W M•
Apr 25, 2020
The course could have been designed better instructionally
Jun 07, 2017
Apr 13, 2020
More reading resources could have been provided
Nov 23, 2019
useful information. The math was over my head
автор: Elihu S•
Nov 21, 2016
tricky concepts and long equations yet fun
автор: Raphael T•
Jan 06, 2019
quite slack, it lacks scientific rigor
автор: Loo W M•
Nov 25, 2016
Lecturer not conversant with subject.
автор: Jingxin Z•
Oct 19, 2018
a little bit confusing
автор: Josh T•
Jul 11, 2020
The examples with the tables and trees and calculations (i.e. the stuff on the problem sets and quizzes) were all fine, though during lecture there should have been far more examples worked through. And problem sets should be: 1or2 problems (max), then explanation in between, then another problem or two, etc... not just one big set with answers explained at the end. Students need a chance to learn from mistakes! But still, I'd give four stars if that were the whole issue. But the real issue was with the presentation of the theory (all the formal definition stuff - and there was a whole lot of that.) It was not done well. Very difficult to follow and even more difficult to connect to the real world examples, which were far easier to follow than the theory. My eyes glazed over often during those more formal parts of the lectures. And there were so many mistakes, both mis-spoken in the lectures and on the written slides and even on the problem set and quiz answers (confusing typos, not actual wrong answers) . Many of the lecture mistakes were caught and rectified using side notes, but that didn't help matters when one was already having trouble grasping concepts and vocabulary and such. Why not just re-record those sections without mistakes? And why not correct all the written issues? Left wanting, in the end...
автор: Nikhil K•
Mar 25, 2017
For a beginner, it is a fair start but definitely many things could have been better. The course does cover the main subject concepts in fair amount of depth and with decent rigor. The course videos are sometimes kind of less engaging. Many a times I felt my interest waning off. Many a times, the mathematical equations looked daunting. I think more focus should be put on including more number of real world examples and solving them within the videos.
Also, the concept of three Professors for one course was hard to digest, which led to the whole course feeling discontinuous and disconnected at several instances.
автор: Stephen C•
Apr 17, 2020
This course has interesting concepts. But I found Yoav Shohan to be extremely difficult to follow. He skips points which would connect one thought to another and does not explain other things clearly. I had to go over his lectures several times each week to be able to understand what he was trying to convey. He should be teaching only more advanced courses. The other 2 instructors were engaging and much clearer. But they could not compensate for Dr. Shahan's negative impact. (for me). I have completed many coursera courses, but I dropped out of this one after Week 3.
автор: Pablo E•
Mar 27, 2018
The course could be more didactic. I miss many more examples, exercises and complementary readings to the videos. The videos are not always easy to understand. The games could be explained better and the teachings that can be drawn from them are not usually commented. It is a very interesting subject in which I would like to come back into the case that there were more suitable materials. Thank you very much for offering this course.
автор: James K•
Aug 04, 2017
I'm sorry but I had to drop out. The course presentation is simply too static ( why do you bother to have the lecturers in the frame if all they do is talk to their little laptops?)
And while I've managed to complete a number of other courses which require a basic understanding on higher maths, the assumed knowledge in this course was beyond my limits.
автор: Manuel G R V•
Aug 08, 2020
Game theory tries to solve an interesting subject with methods that rely on assumptions of optimization that are not necessarily true in real life. Instructors gave practically zero examples of cases where the application of these methods worked.
автор: Alan D•
Jan 28, 2020
This course was pretty terrible: there was actually very little content outside of a bunch of definitions and overly-complex formalism for the sake of formalism (i.e. the formalisms provide no actual mathematical insight into the topics).