I think what game theory could use is a little bit of the concept of price-of-entry into a new market, Ie, doing something at a loss now in order to generate profit later. This is similar but not exactly the same as the idea of a loss-leader. What a lot of classic game theory is missing is the idea of a feedback-loop.<p>In a game where &quot;Bob&quot; is continually offered one cent, if he burns the other player who is trying to get the other 99 cents, he&#x27;s signaling that they&#x27;ll have to cut him a better deal. The other player would be irrational to continue offering the 99&#x2F;1 split after it had been previously rejected.<p>For the other player, even (especially!) if it&#x27;s a computer, the rational choice is to keep upping Bob&#x27;s percentage until it finds a number he&#x27;ll accept. So you&#x27;re right that 40% only speaks to a specific utility, but in any case, the only rational number is whatever number Bob (and the first player) will accept.