Abstract
The paper shows that Corollary 10.3 in Muthoo's book Bargaining Theory with Applications (Cambridge University Press, 1999) is incorrect and proves that patience increases a player's equilibrium share in repeated bargaining situations. It clarifies why a tempting strategy of proof - replacing terms of an expression by approximations with identical limits, then doing comparative statics or taking limits - is flawed and will yield wrong conclusions in other contexts as well.