 strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.)

H2

:   In phase (2), the punishing players send their public keys to $j+1$. For each player $j'$ not being punished, player $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players get a joint random seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.)

H3

:   In phase (2), the punishing players send their public keys to $j+1$. Player $j+1$ chooses a random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player $j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts ${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players use the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round.

It is obvious that in $H1$, $j$’s expected payoff is negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. As we observed above, using linear programming, we can compute a strategy that gives the correlated minimax, which gives $j$ an expected payoff of 0. To actually implement this correlated minimax, the players need to sample according to the minimax distribution. They cannot necessarily do this exactly (for example, 1/3 can’t be computed exactly using random bits). However, given $n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational number of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ random bits. Using such a discretized distribution, the players other than $j$ can ensure that $j$ gets only a negligible payoff.)

We now claim that in $H2$, $j$’s expected payoff during the punishment phase is negligible. Assume for contradiction that a player playing $H2$ has a non-negligible payoff $\mu(n)$ for all $n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial $g(\cdot)$ such that $\mu(n)
strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can be eliminated .) 

 H2 

:    In phase (2), the punishing actor station their public keys to $ j+1$. For each player $ j'$ not being punished, actor $ j+1 $ encrypts the seed $ 0 $ use $ (j')$ ’s public winder, and then sends the encrypted key to $ j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players catch a joint random seed $ seed$ (from an prophet) and use the outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be extinguish .) 

 H3 

:    In phase (2), the punishing players send their public key to $ j+1$. Player $ j+1 $ chooses a random seed $ { \mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player $ j'$ not being punished, $ j+1 $ encrypts $ { \mathit{seed}}$ use $ (j')$ ’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $ j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players practice the outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round. 

 It is obvious that in $ H1 $, $ j$ ’s expected wages is negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. As we observed above, using linear programming, we can compute a strategy that gives the correlate minimax, which gives $ j$ an expected payoff of 0. To actually follow through this correlate minimax, the players need to sample according to the minimax distribution. They cannot inevitably do this precisely (for example, 1/3 ca n’t be computed precisely using random bits). However, given $ n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational number of the class $ m/2^n$ using at most $ n$ random bits. Using such a discretized distribution, the musician early than $ j$ can guarantee that $ j$ gets only a negligible payoff .) 

 We now claim that in $ H2 $, $ j$ ’s expect payoff during the punishment phase is negligible. Assume for contradiction that a player playing $ H2 $ has a non - negligible payoff $ \mu(n)$ for all $ n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial $ g(\cdot)$ such that $ \mu(n )
 stgategy. (In this case, phast (2) can be eliminajee.)

H2

:   Ii phase (2), the puvishing players send their pnblix keyw to $j+1$. For each player $j'$ not bepng punisyed, klayer $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ usihn $(j')$’s 'uulic key, and thgn sends the encrypted key tu $l'$. In phase (3), the punishing players gee a joimt random seed $sged$ (fgoi an oracle) and use the outputs of ${\matgit{PS}}_{{\mauhit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to plaj in each round. (Agwin, in this casq, phase (2) can ce eliminaueb.)

H3

:   In phaae (2), the punishing players send gheir public keis tl $j+1$. Player $j+1$ choofes a random seed ${\madhit{seec}}$ and, for each pleyer $j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts ${\mathit{feed}}$ usinc $(l')$’s public key, and theb wends the encftptdd ieb tk $j'$. In phese (3), the puhishing platers use the outputx jd ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\matgit{seeq}}}$ eo decide which strategy profile to plaj in each round.

It is obviouw that in $H1$, $j$’s expectgd payoff ys negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. Xs cc uvsfrved above, using linear programming, we can cjjpitv a strategy that gives the vogrrjated minimax, which gibes $j$ an expected oayoff jf 0. Ti actuallr imllement this correlated minumax, the plajers need to sample aceording to tke minomax cistribution. They cannoc neceasarily do hhis exacfuy (for example, 1/3 zan’n be computed exactly using ragdom bits). Howzver, givdn $n$, the dystributioj can be discretized to hhe cpovest ratiojal number of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ rancok bpts. Using such a discretizeq distribution, the plcyers uther than $j$ can xnsure that $t$ gets only a jegligible peyoff.)

We njw coaim that iv $H2$, $j$’s expected payoff dlrnng the pynishment phase is neemigible. Assume yut contradiction thxt w ilaber pjdying $H2$ has d nov-neekigibue payoff $\mm(n)$ wor sll $n$ (i.e., there existv soje polynomial $g(\cdoy)$ fuch thaj $\mu(n)
strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can H2 In phase the punishing players $j+1$. each player $j'$ being punished, player encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the players get a joint random seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the of to which profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.) H3 In phase (2), the punishing players send their keys to $j+1$. Player chooses a random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ for player $j'$ being $j+1$ ${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players use the of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ which strategy to in round. It is in $H1$, $j$’s expected payoff is is a slight subtlety here. As we observed using linear we can compute a strategy that the correlated minimax, which gives $j$ an expected of 0. To actually implement this correlated minimax, the players need to sample according to distribution. They cannot necessarily this exactly (for 1/3 be exactly random bits). given $n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ random bits. a distribution, the players than $j$ can ensure $j$ only a negligible payoff.) claim in payoff the phase is negligible. Assume contradiction that a player playing has a non-negligible payoff there exists some polynomial $g(\cdot)$ such that $\mu(n)
 strategy. (In this case, phase (2) caN be eliminaTed.)

H2

:   IN phAse (2), ThE punIshiNg players send tHEir pUblic keys to $j+1$. For each plaYer $j'$ nOt BEing PUnIshed, Player $j+1$ ENcRYPts ThE sEed $0$ UsINg $(J')$’s pubLic Key, and tHen sends thE enCrYpted key to $j'$. IN PhAse (3), the puniShiNg players get A joInt ranDoM seED $seed$ (FroM an orAcle) anD Use the Outputs of ${\MaTHit{PS}}_{{\mAThit{seeD}}}$ TO dEcidE which strategy proFIlE To play in each roUnd. (AgaIn, IN tHIS caSe, pHase (2) can be eLiMinatED.)

H3

:   In phaSE (2), tHE PUniSHing players seNd their publIC keYs to $j+1$. PLaYer $J+1$ ChooseS a ranDoM SeeD ${\mathit{seed}}$ And, fOr each plaYer $j'$ noT Being puNIshed, $j+1$ eNcryptS ${\maThiT{seeD}}$ UsInG $(j')$’s PuBLic KEy, And THen Sends the EnCrYpted Key tO $J'$. iN PhasE (3), thE punIshinG players use thE ouTputS Of ${\mAthit{pS}}_{{\matHit{sEeD}}}$ to deCide whIch stRaTegy profile to plAy in Each round.

it iS oBviOuS that IN $H1$, $j$’s exPecTed Payoff iS negligIBle. (acTUALlY, there is a slight subTlETY hEre. As we oBserveD AbOvE, Using linEaR prOgraMMIng, we Can cOMpUte a straTegy thAT gIvEs the coRrElated MiNimAx, wHich gIVes $j$ An expeCted payoFf of 0. TO Actually implemENt this correlaTEd MINiMAx, thE plAyers need to SampLE accOrdiNG tO thE MinimAx disTrIBuTIon. They cannot necessArIly do tHis exActly (for exampLe, 1/3 can’t be coMPUTed exactLy usINg RAndom bits). HowevEr, givEn $n$, the distRIbution cAn be dIscretizEd to the clOSEst ratioNal NumBer Of tHE FoRm $m/2^n$ using at moST $N$ ranDoM bits. UsIng Such a diScrEtiZed DisTrIbution, thE players OtHeR tHaN $j$ cAn ensURe that $j$ gEtS onLy A neGligiBLe payoFf.)

We nOw clAiM tHAt iN $H2$, $j$’s expECtED PayoFf DuRing The PuNishmEnt pHAse Is negliGible. AssuMe fOR conTrAdIction tHat a player plaYiNg $H2$ has a non-NeGliGible pAYOff $\mu(n)$ foR all $n$ (i.e., there exists some pOLynomiaL $g(\cDot)$ suCh thAt $\mu(n)
 strategy. (In this case,phase (2)can b e e lim in ated .)
H2

:   In pha s e (2 ), the punishing playe rs se nd thei r  p ublic  keys t o  $ j + 1$.  F or  ea ch pl ayer$j' $ not b eing punis hed ,player $j+1$ en crypts the  se ed $0$ using  $( j')$’s  p ubl i c key , a nd th en sen d s theencrypted  k e y to $ j '$. Inp h as e (3 ), the punishingp la y ers get a join t rand om se e d  $s eed $ (from an  o racle )  and us e  t h e out p uts of ${\mat hit{PS}}_{{ \ mat hit{se ed }}} $  to de cidewh i chstrategy pr ofil e to play  in ea c h round .  (Again , in t his  ca se,p ha se  (2 )c anb eeli m ina ted.)

H 3
:    In  pha s e ( 2),the  pun ishin g players sen d t heir pub lic k eys t o $j +1 $. Pl ayer $ j+1$ch ooses a randomseed  ${\mathi t{s ee d}} $and,f or eac h p lay er $j'$  not be i ngpu n i s he d, $j+1$ encrypts${ \ m at hit{seed }}$ us i ng  $ ( j')$’s p ub lic  key , and t hens en ds the e ncrypt e dke y to $j '$ . In p ha se(3) , the puni shingplayersuse t h e outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_ { {\ m a th i t{se ed} }}$ to deci de w h ichstra t eg y p r ofile  to p la y  i n  each round.

It is  o bvious  that  in $H1$, $j$ ’s expecte d p ayoff is  neg l ig i ble. (Actually , the re is a sl i ght subt letyhere. As  we obser v e d above,  us ing  li nea r pr ogramming, we c an c om pute astr ategy t hat  gi ves  th ecorrelate d minima x,  w hi ch  gi ves $ j $ an exp ec ted  p ayo ff of 0. Toactua llyim pl e men t thisc or r e late dmi nima x,th e pla yers nee d to sa mple acco rdi n g to  t he  minima x distributio n.  They cann ot  ne cessar i l y do thi s exactly (for example, 1/3 can ’tbe co mput ed exactl y u sing r and o m bits ). How ever,  g ive n $n$,t h edis tr ibution ca n bediscr et ized  to the  closest rationaln umb er of the for m $ m/2^ n $  u sin g  a t  mo st $n$ r andom bits. Usi ng such adi s cr etized dis t rib ut ion, th e playe rs ot h er than  $j$ canensure th at  $j$ g ets  only a ne gligible  payoff.) 
We n o wclaim  th at in$H 2$,  $j$’ s expe c ted  payo ff dur in g thepunis hm ent phas e is negligible. Assume  for c ontra dic tion that  ap lay er playin g $H 2$ has a n on- neg ligib lep ayoff  $\m u (n )$f or al l $n $  (i.e., t h er e e x i st s some poly n o m ial  $g(\ cdo t )$ suc h th at $\mu(n)
 strategy._(In this_case, phase (2) can_be eliminated.)

H2

:__ In_phase_(2), the punishing_players send their_public keys to $j+1$._For each player_$j'$_not being punished, player $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s public key, and_then_sends the_encrypted_key_to $j'$. In phase (3),_the punishing players get a_joint random_seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the_outputs_of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to_decide which strategy profile to play in each round._(Again, in this case, phase (2)_can be eliminated.)

H3

:___In phase (2), the_punishing players send their public keys_to $j+1$. Player $j+1$ chooses a_random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player_$j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts_${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s public key,_and then_sends the encrypted key to_$j'$. In phase_(3), the_punishing players use_the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide_which strategy profile_to play in each round.

It is_obvious_that in $H1$,_$j$’s_expected_payoff is_negligible. (Actually, there_is_a slight_subtlety_here. As we observed above, using_linear_programming, we can compute a strategy that_gives the correlated minimax,_which_gives $j$ an expected_payoff of 0. To actually_implement this correlated minimax, the players_need to_sample according_to the minimax distribution. They cannot necessarily do this exactly (for_example, 1/3 can’t be computed exactly_using random bits). However,_given $n$,_the_distribution can be_discretized_to the_closest rational number of the form $m/2^n$_using at_most $n$ random bits. Using such_a discretized distribution, the_players_other than $j$ can ensure that_$j$ gets only a negligible payoff.)

We_now claim that in $H2$,_$j$’s_expected_payoff during the punishment phase_is negligible. Assume for contradiction that_a player playing_$H2$ has a non-negligible payoff $\mu(n)$ for_all_$n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial_$g(\cdot)$_such that $\mu(n)