So, assuming all 5 retailers act rationally, and that they assume all their customers and competitors act rationally. Station #1 knows most of its customers wo

So, assuming all 5 retailers act rationally, and that they assume all their customers and competitors act rationally. Station #1 knows most of its customers won't be comparing (don't care or running low). So they can jack prices up a little more. Station #2 knows that the only comparison they can be sure ALL their customers make is with Station #1, which will be jacked up, so they can increase their margins a little (above avg, below #1). #3, #4 and #5 could follow the same logic, except for this. Station #5 knows many of its customers won't compare either. They're the last option without turning around, and many comparison shoppers won't turn around for a few lousy cents / gallon. So they can increase their margin a little. Which leaves Station #3 wanting to look reasonable compared to #1 & #2, and able to survive a comparison with at least #4. And Station #4 knows they will be a good comparison with #5 but need to compete with #3 and so will probably be at or about the same level as #3. In other words, #1 will be most expensive. #2 & #5 will have good cause for being a little extra. And #3 & #4 will both be subject to the largest competitive forces and will likely have similar, lowest prices. Shame the initial assumption I made was completely crap.