Opiniones y comentarios de aprendices correspondientes a Teoría de juegos por parte de Universidad de Stanford

Good Course

Xperience

Not bad!

Great

烧脑，

ok

This could be a good course but some of the instruction is severely lacking. One of the instructors really seems to be phoning it in... in one module he provides two videos, where one is the exact same as the other except an additional minute of material. In another he teaches the exact same material as a different instructor (same slides and all).

Be prepared to spend more time on YouTube watching videos than on the lectures here. After the first few weeks the lectures simply do not prepare you to answer the problem sets (which often contain grammatically confused questions which may or may not change the answer).

All in all the material is very interesting and two of the instructors do a very good job explaining mathematical notation. I would say it would be very helpful to have an understanding of set theory and mathematical notation... there is very little heavy math required. If you understand a few calculus concepts (like limits) the number crunching portion isn't very taxing.

Not a bad course. I enjoyed a lot of the content but personally I work best with many practice examples to build an intuition of the concepts. This was unfortunately lacking across all the weeks in my opinion, several different topics were covered each week with each having only one or two practice examples.

As a result I think that I completed many of the weeks without having a deep understanding of a lot of the content. The areas that I did have a good understanding of were supplemented by external resources on youtube, quora etc. These explained the concepts in a more intuitive way than digging into the algebra which much of this course is.

I think that if more practice examples had been provided as a supplement or if more in video quizzes and longer test sets were present I would have given this a four or five but I was not blown away by the course in it's current iteration.

I attended Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course recently here on Coursera and thought it was really brilliant. Thought this concept of online learning is really promising and good way for free education at ones own initiative. I had hoped that this course in Game Theory would offer the same experience. But unfortunately I must say that I had expected a better experience. To learn it is required a lot of repetition with examples that are easy to follow. I think that is the missing point in this course in comparison to Andrew Ng's course. All credit to the three professor lecturers who have prepared the video clips for these classes, but if the ambition would have been a little bit higher, the value would have been much bigger.

In my opinion, it gets too technical and it is not a self contained course at all. Neither it is a beginner course for game theory. If someone is looking to understand the real basics of it, should take the Univeristy of Tokyo course. Some lessons were really abstract and I ended up looking for information in other websites to understand it. Another thing... I suppose the three lecturers are incredible good in their respective fields, but in the teaching part, Some Shoham's lessons were like listening to a robot. M. O Jackson is pretty clear in his explanations altough too technical, and Leyton Brown has a very clear way to teach, but I honestly got lost many times in the final exercises.

It was way too heavy into math. I find it covered a lot less theory than Game Theory should. Sure, I did learn a lot, but they did not explain it the best at times, and frequently I had no idea how to apply what I just learned. I got a 10% on the final exam first try. I'm a smart kid, straight A's, taking all honors and ap's, so this isn't something that happens often. In fact, this is the first time I've gotten a score that low. This really goes to show I didn't learn well from this course, and unless you only think of things from a logical standpoint and math, this may not be the best course for you.

I was looking for something that covered more material, as I was already familiar with many of the concepts. This is simply a matter of expectation, however, and not entirely the course's fault.I feel like the math was given with little to no explanation. More attention should be given there, at the very least to point to where the formulas come from and how to derive similar ones.Finally, the exercises, while definitely helpful!, could have been more general and difficult, to force people to seek for the answers instead of just following rote calculations blindly following the class.

The lectures were great and averaging an hour of lecture per week, the instructors were able to incorporate a lot of material. The only problem was the equations they used were never explained thoroughly enough to my learning style. I wish there were more resources to the equations and understanding the symbols associated with Game Theory. Finally, it would be great if the quizzes incorporated more conceptual questions versus strictly computational.

Generally a good course, but unfortunately some terms were given in a really obscure way. Therefore had to look for better clarifications on other resources. In addition, some procedures in terms of resolution for exercises were provided badly. Thus I found myself pausing a video and trying to guess where came one value from and where it went afterwards and it turnued out to that one and so on...

Great course except Yoav Shoham's lectures. He definitely didn't spend much time on preparing it. His lecture is full of "Err...Emm...Arr", and sometimes he speaks out conflict information compare to the slides. In week 4 he has two lectures but they are actually one, the second one contains the first one in its first 9 minutes.

Again, great course, the other two instructors are fantastic.

The teachers and fantastic and the content is great. I am grateful to Coursera, Stanford University and the professors to provide this interesting course of Game Theory. To just enumerate a downside to this course is that at some points the teaching methods of the professors become uninteresting and also there is better explanation for concepts available on the internet.

Interesting topic, but some of the lectures can get a bit dull and drag on. I think more connections to real life applications of the content would have made it more interesting too. The problem sets were pretty fun to think through and I enjoyed the problem solving and logic aspects of it. Overall pretty decent course, although not too useful for real life.

The material presented in the lectures was almost entirely conceptual (which is fine), but often the material in the problem sets required applications that hadn't been explained in the lecture, which was quite frustrating and I think counter-productive to learning. But the lectures were good (although I didn't like the one on complexity theory)!

Me ha parecido un curso introductorio para gente que ya conoce bastante de teoría de juegos. Me parece que se introducen los conceptos de forma poco ordenada y con ejemplos complicados. El contenido matemático se introduce de golpe. Sería interesante más desarrollo desde el comienzo o dejarlo de lado en un anexo si no se va a explicar en detalle.

Fix errors in video, presentations, prepare scenario in order to speak without uhm, ehm etc and it would be much better.

The course is very popular so this time investment will worth of doing.

In quizes problems are very easy. Quiz one of the weeks consists of several identical questions differing only in payoffs matrices values, not even sizes.

Sometimes teachers go too fast and there is a lake of explanation (for repetitive extensive form game for example and how to calculate treshold).

Furthermore, quizz often give the correct answer after first error, therefore it's relatively easy to pass even if you don't understand the lesson (but it may be your choice)

Great introduction into the topic, yet, shows room for improvement in presenting the topic. The gap between "easy to get examples" (to illustrate the concept), and mathematical expression and formulars should be bridged better.

Specifically as the theoretical part appears to be irrelevant for the subsequent exams.

Certain aspects of the course are good, however, a lot of improvements still need to be made in the discussion of the examples in particular the Bayesian theory module, more depth is required and some of the more difficult examples could be addressed. The delivery of Yoav could also definitely be improved.

Not an easy subject to teach but... Video presentations could have been much more engaging. oo many formulas given to digest, without often being given enough qualitative information. Difficulty of exercises too low compared to the complexity of the material. provided

Quite a difficult course to learn and follow, but worth it in the end.

The lectures could benefit from intermediate questions to ensure concepts are understood as explained, more thorough examples and anecdotal explanations, and randomized exam questions.