I am a little bit confused by the definition of dominant strategy and winning strategy, what's the difference between them.
Following are the definitions taken from wikipedia, below every definition I added some thoughts. If you fell that my thoughts are not correct or ambigues please let me know.
Dominant strategy.In game theory, dominant strategy (commonly called simply dominance) occurs when one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player's opponents may play. Many simple games can be solved using dominance.
The first interesting note is that the term dominant strategy is applied only to two different strategies, and more precisely it's should be defined as "A is dominant strategy over B", actually the notion "dominant strategy" might be relevant to the game itself in this case the dominant strategy A dominates over all other strategies of the player.
Winning strategy.A strategy is winning if the player following it must necessarily win, no matter what his opponent plays.
This notion sounds like stronger notion than dominant strategy, because having winning strategy its guaranteed that the player wins if he follows the strategy no matter what the opponent does, on the other hand dominant strategy does not guaranteed the win, it only says that dominant strategy guarantees the best possible outcome for the player over all possible player's strategies and no matter what the opponent does.
I would to emphasize one common property for the dominant strategy and the winning strategy they both determined by the outcome of the game and don't depend on the strategy of the opponent.
In my opinion, winning strategy is always a dominant strategy, but vice verse is not always true.
Do you agree with the intuitive understand and thought?