Game theory's standard solution is often not the best one

A new paper shows that many common game theory outcomes are not actually the best possible. If three or more players are making random choices, they can almost always coordinate to get a better result.

Game theory helps design everything from auctions to online platforms. For decades, the "Nash equilibrium" was the standard for predicting how rational players would act. This paper means that many systems built on that idea might be leaving money or efficiency on the table. Designers of these systems now have a mathematical reason to look for ways to help players coordinate.