The Stag Hunt 🦌

The Scenario

Two hunters are out. They can cooperate to hunt a **stag** (a large, valuable prize, giving both a great meal). However, hunting a stag requires both hunters to commit and coordinate. If one hunter goes for the stag and the other doesn't, the stag hunter gets nothing.

Alternatively, either hunter can individually hunt a **hare** (a smaller, less valuable prize, but a guaranteed catch). Hunting a hare doesn't require cooperation.

The Payoff Matrix (You vs. PC)

Outcomes are represented as (Your Meal Size, PC's Meal Size).

PC's Choice
Hunt Stag Hunt Hare
Your
Choice		 Hunt Stag Big Meal (10, 10) No Meal (0, 3)
Hunt Hare Small Meal (3, 0) Small Meal (3, 3)

**Meal Size Legend:**
0: No Meal
3: Small Meal (Hare)
10: Big Meal (Stag)

Play the Game! (5 Rounds)

You are Hunter A. Make your choice. The computer (Hunter B) will choose randomly.

Your Total Meal: 0 units | PC's Total Meal: 0 units

Game History

Round You PC Your Round Meal PC's Round Meal Your Total Meal PC's Total Meal

Conclusion: Key Lessons from the Stag Hunt

The Stag Hunt emphasizes the benefits and risks of cooperation compared to individual self-interest:

  1. Mutual Benefit of Cooperation: The best outcome for both players (hunting the stag) requires mutual trust and cooperation.
  2. Risk of Betrayal: If you commit to the stag, but your partner hunts a hare, you get nothing, which is a significant risk.
  3. Safety of Defection: Hunting a hare guarantees a small meal, regardless of what the other player does. It's the "safe" but less rewarding option.
  4. Importance of Trust: Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, where defection is often the dominant strategy, in the Stag Hunt, if both players *trust* each other to cooperate, they both benefit greatly.
← Back to Game Theory Playground