We propose weakening the assumption made when studying the price of anarchy: Rather than assume that selfinterested
players will play according to a Nash equilibrium (which may even be computationally hard to find), we
assume only that selfish players play so as to minimize their own regret. Regret minimization can be done via simple,
efficient algorithms even in many settings where the number of action choices for each player is exponential in the
natural parameters of the problem. We prove that despite our weakened assumptions, in several broad classes of
games, this “price of total anarchy” matches the Nash price of anarchy, even though play may never converge to Nash
equilibrium. In contrast to the price of anarchy and the recently introduced price of sinking [15], which require all
players to behave in a prescribed manner, we show that the price of total anarchy is in many cases resilient to the
presence of Byzantine players, about whom we make no assumptions. Finally, because the price of total anarchy
is an upper bound on the price of anarchy even in mixed strategies, for some games our results yield as corollaries
previously unknown bounds on the price of anarchy in mixed strategies.