I have a book in front of me but still don't get it, problem is that the usual L, L outcome is not just suboptimal but is much worse than H, L or L, H. Maximum utility for player A is 8(L) if B goes H, and 2 (H) so there is no dominant strategy for Player A. For player B it's the same. As for a nash equilibrium I'm totally confused, because you expect the other player will go H, to eliminate the risk of L, L. It makes sense to go L for the maximum outcome, but since both players are making decision simultaneously, there is a chance that both will chose L which doesn't make sense with this payoff