What it means
Most business models assume the world holds steady while you optimise. Game theory drops that assumption and treats competitors, suppliers, regulators and customers as players who adjust their behaviour in response to yours.
The basic apparatus is a set of players, the options each has, and a payoff table showing the result for everyone under each combination of choices. Once the payoffs are written down, you can ask which combination is stable, meaning no player would want to change their move given what everyone else is doing.
That stable point is called a Nash equilibrium, and it is often worse for everyone than an outcome they could have reached by cooperating. The classic pattern is a price war in which each competitor cuts prices because cutting beats holding whatever the rival does, and both end up poorer than if they had held firm.
The practical value is less about solving equations than about forcing a disciplined question into strategy meetings: what will they do next, and what will they do after that? Bidding for a contract, timing a product launch and setting a negotiating anchor all improve when the other side's incentives are written down rather than assumed.
Repetition changes everything, because a game played once rewards aggression while a game played every quarter rewards reputation. This is why long-running supplier relationships and stable industries often settle into cooperative behaviour that a one-off analysis would never predict.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
Two supermarkets in the same town both run a fuel discount because neither can afford to be the one that does not. Margins fall for both, and neither can stop first without losing traffic to the other.
Example
A construction firm bidding for a public contract works out that the two likely rivals need the work to cover overheads. It bids at a thin margin rather than its usual mark up, correctly predicting an aggressive field.
Example
A software vendor delays announcing a new tier until after a competitor's user conference. Announcing first would hand the rival a fortnight to adjust its own pricing before launch.
Formula
Calculation
Expected payoff of a strategy = Sum of (Probability of each rival response x Your payoff under that response). The dominant strategy is the one with the better payoff whatever the rival does.
Two rival coach operators each decide whether to hold fares or cut them. If both hold, each earns $10,000,000 of annual profit. If one cuts and the other holds, the cutter earns $12,000,000 and the holder earns $4,000,000. If both cut, each earns $7,000,000.
For operator A, if B holds: cutting gives $12,000,000 against $10,000,000 for holding, so cutting wins by $2,000,000.
If B cuts: cutting gives $7,000,000 against $4,000,000 for holding, so cutting wins by $3,000,000.
Cutting is therefore the dominant strategy for both, and the equilibrium is both cutting at $7,000,000 each, which is $3,000,000 each worse than the $10,000,000 available if both had held. Putting probabilities on it gives the same answer: if A believes there is a 60% chance B cuts, holding is worth (0.4 x $10,000,000) + (0.6 x $4,000,000) = $4,000,000 + $2,400,000 = $6,400,000, while cutting is worth (0.4 x $12,000,000) + (0.6 x $7,000,000) = $4,800,000 + $4,200,000 = $9,000,000.Case study
Seen in the real world.
Trellis Mobility is a fictional, illustrative telecoms challenger with a single national rival. Its commercial team proposed cutting the flagship tariff by 15% to add subscribers, forecasting 90,000 new customers and $22,000,000 of extra annual revenue.
The finance director insisted on mapping the rival's likely response first. The rival had spare network capacity, a larger cash balance and a history of matching within a fortnight, which made a matching cut close to certain; on that assumption the forecast turned into roughly 20,000 net additions and $9,000,000 less revenue, because the discount applied to the entire existing base as well.
Trellis instead launched a data rollover feature that the rival's older billing platform could not copy quickly. The illustrative lesson is that the strongest competitive move is often the one your opponent cannot easily match, not the one that looks best if they do nothing.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Building a competitive forecast that assumes rivals do not respond. Any plan that only works if the competition stands still is not a plan, it is a hope.
- Confusing game theory with predicting exactly what a rival will do. It maps incentives and likely responses, and it is useful precisely because the future is uncertain.
- Treating every situation as a fight to be won. Many business games are repeated and positive sum, and playing them as one-off contests destroys value on both sides.
Questions
People also ask.
Do you need advanced mathematics to use game theory?
No, most practical value comes from writing down the players, their options and their payoffs on a single page.
What is a dominant strategy?
It is an option that gives you a better result than the alternatives regardless of what the other players choose, which makes it the rational move.
Why do competitors sometimes avoid price wars without colluding?
Because a repeated game rewards restraint, each side learns that matching cuts destroys margin for everyone, so both quietly compete on features instead.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%Related