For instance, based on that Wikipedia article:

>Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill's decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).

That's not what my theory says.

The main thrust of my theory is that the players actually improve their payoffs if they make the best decisions (for themselves) that he or she can - without taking into account the decisions of the others. Because I believe, and this has to be tested of course, that if both parties do that, it will result in the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved. As opposed to the Nash equilibrium that 'encourages' players to do things like forming a cartel to improve profits - because in my theory, doing that will only lead to their eventual downfall because at some point another firm will do what is in it's own self-interest and expose the cartel. So everybody in the cartel would be worst off, but the one firm that sheds light on it, would be better off. It's an extreme version of virtuosity through extreme selfishness (if that makes any sense).

It could be that I got my theory from somewhere and just don't know the actual name, and if I did I would love to find that name. But I have not stumbled across it yet, and I guess in the back of my mind I am hoping that it is original thought.

"players actually improve their payoffs if they make the best decisions (for themselves) that he or she can "

-- the problem is that statistically, folks make bad decisions/ - often because, the motivation for that decision isnt clear.

motivations play a key role as well as the individuals understanding of fairness.