so good

Great!

good

Okay

The course was useful in providing an introduction to the basics of game theory.

However it would benefit from a native English proofread and smoother delivery.

There were also problems throughout regarding the display of graphics and notes behind the professor, who kept pointing to something other than he was referring to.

A couple of math notations were also incorrect, for example "<" when the professor said "less than or equal to".

Overall though, I'm pleased that I took the course and I learned several important aspects of the topic that will benefit me in future study.

It gives an introduction to the subject of game theory. However, the last week deviated a bit from the core topic of game theory and I found some mathematical details about the game sand their payoffs slightly missing. A good introduction to the subject, though. Thankyou!

While the subject is interesting, the professor sometimes makes it confusing and dense to understand the basic ideas.

Maybe this course does need a mathematic or economic background...

Some of the questions in the quizzes were tough and there wasn't a great deal of explanation provided for it. There was little help regarding the honours content.

No acabé la primer semana, el profesor titubea, repite palabras, es difícil seguirlo y los ejemplos confusos

I had Problems Understanding the language. Pr Kandori helped me understand certain social situations.

My certificate is cut actually. University of tokyo is not showing properly in my certificate,

Somewhat challenging to be able to learn (maybe cause I am not good with Calculus)

Video Orientation is not proper.

Not up to my expectation

good to begin with!

WAS SO BORING!!

1) Please look at the camera and arrange the slides so that emphasis can be correctly pointed out, quite often in the lectures Dr. Kandori is pointing at a blank space and his eyes are jumping around to read his script. These actions really detract from the content. He hardly ever looks at the viewer. 2) There is a lot of repeated content. 3) Some of the main points that are given in the quizzes were glossed over in the lectures. 4) The slides are so-so. Also, there is no need to focus examples around an American audience. Why not use Japanese names instead of "Andy" and "Becky" and also why not use other political examples other than Democrats and Republicans? The US system is falling apart so it doesn't deserve to be described in a course as a credible example. One side has become completely corrupt. It would be more interesting to discuss disintegration of the system due to corruption then to say it is a 'not exactly' example that game theory may have good prediction for. 5) It would be excellent to spend a lot more time with examples of game matrices and finding Nash Equilibria. There were not enough examples. Also, what happens if there are over 100 choices per player? What are the algorithms to solve this problem efficiently? What happens if there are more than two players? 6) No one is monitoring the comments and questions. This isn't helpful. I get the feeling that the only reason this course is still offered, aside from the financial motivation, is to gather more data for the two player game students are ask to play. The course overall feels dated. It feels like 2015! 7) Please just give the bottom line learning from the PNAS paper rather than advertising it. Are the conclusions from that paper still holding up? Thank you for your time. I did learn some things and have already bought two of the recommended books.

It's good for a course of 3 hours in high school but definitely not a college-level one. I almost finished the quiz and exams without going through the videos. If the course can't challenge an outsider, he will not benefit from it either.

And there lacks a "further reading or material" part, the basic models are not satisfying. (I thought there would be a introduction to Zermelo's theorem ...)

I hope more interesting models could be introduced.

I call false advertising! This course has nothing to do with what it claimed to be. Strategy is something entirely different than mathematics.

As i already know all of this , this is pretty useless for me

Some explanations are inadequate

very poor