I’m thinking about negotiation using a game. Theoretic approach and two things that come to mind are negotiating a salary for a job and being a buyer and seller in various transactions.Especially housing transactions. there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I'd like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let's say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let's say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A there are some caveats that distort a pure game. Theoretic approach to each, such as contracts and who makes the first offer. But generally, I’d like to discuss these, and in particular, the idea of an escalation clause, so as I define it, that would mean that at the outset, or as close to the outset as possible after an initial number. Has been put out the party using game theory. States, a heuristic that for each unsuccessful round of negotiation where an offer is made but then declined the counteroffer then goes in the opposite direction you might think so, what where we think of negotiations as pushing the price down. Or meeting at the middle, what actually can counteract? That is saying, okay, let’s say, for whatever transaction. I state that if you reject my offer. I doubled the price so using a house says it an absurd example. Let’s say I say, uh, that if you reject my offer of a $100000 for this house. The price of the house goes up to 200000 then 400000 now, this is obviously an absurd, an example, except that, in theory, something like A An asymmetric negotiation where you're negotiating against a much powerful adversary that want something or want you to do something. That could actually be really powerful and can go in increments too. So I could say that if you reject my salary offer of a $100000, the price actually goes up each time. So if you no, we’ll offer you 90. No. Now my counteroffer is a 110000 And that could say, apply to a house as well and actually provide a very powerful leverage. There is something like that currently used in certain high demand real estate markets called an escalation clause one, which doesn’t quite work like that, but does start to incorporate game theoretic approaches.