IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/may/mayecw/n220-10.pdf.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Statistical Analysis of 10-pin Bowling Scores and an Examination of the Fairness of Alternative Handicapping Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Donal O'Neill

    (Department of Economics Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland, Maynooth)

  • Sarah Keogh

    (Department of Economics Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland, Maynooth)

Abstract

Using data on approximately 1240 games of bowling we examine the statistical properties of 10-pin bowling scores. We find evidence that that the distribution of bowling scores is approximately log-normally distributed with a common variance across players. This allows us to consider the effectiveness of alternative handicapping systems in allowing less skilled bowlers to compete against more skilled opponents. We show that the current system mitigates against bowlers of low skill and propose a new system which we show works well in equalising the playing field across all match-ups.

Suggested Citation

  • Donal O'Neill & Sarah Keogh, 2011. "A Statistical Analysis of 10-pin Bowling Scores and an Examination of the Fairness of Alternative Handicapping Systems," Economics Department Working Paper Series n220-10.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    • Handle: RePEc:may:mayecw:n220-10.pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.maynoothuniversity.ie/mayecw-files/N220-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wright, Mike, 2014. "OR analysis of sporting rules – A survey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 1-8.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:may:mayecw:n220-10.pdf. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demayie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.