IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v92y2010i3p689-692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Contest Theory: Evidence from Best-of-Three Tennis Matches

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Malueg

    (University of California, Riverside)

  • Andrew J. Yates

    (University of Richmond)

Abstract

We study strategic choice of effort in best-of-three contests between equally skilled players. Economic theory predicts such contests are more likely to end in two rounds than in three. If, however, a contest reaches a third round, each player is equally likely to win. We test these predictions with data from professional tennis matches, using betting odds to identify equally skilled opponents. The empirical results support the theoretical predictions, suggesting players strategically adjust efforts during a best-of-three contest. © 2010 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Malueg & Andrew J. Yates, 2010. "Testing Contest Theory: Evidence from Best-of-Three Tennis Matches," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(3), pages 689-692, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:92:y:2010:i:3:p:689-692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00021
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Bervoets & Bruno Decreuse & Mathieu Faure, 2014. "A Renewed Analysis of Cheating in Contests: Theory and Evidence from Recovery Doping," AMSE Working Papers 1441, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, Marseille, France, revised Jun 2015.
    2. Mago, Shakun D. & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Yates, Andrew, 2013. "Best-of-three contest experiments: Strategic versus psychological momentum," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-296.
    3. Erik O. Kimbrough & Kevin Laughren & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "War and Conflict in Economics: Theories, Applications, and Recent Trends," Working Papers 17-13, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Alex Krumer & Reut Megidish & Aner Sela, 2017. "First-mover advantage in round-robin tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 633-658, March.
    5. Gelder, Alan & Kovenock, Dan, 2017. "Dynamic behavior and player types in majoritarian multi-battle contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 444-455.
    6. Qiang Fu & Changxia Ke & Fangfang Tan, 2013. ""Success Breeds Success" or "Pride Goes Before a Fall"? Teams and Individuals in Multi-contest Tournaments," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2013-06, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    7. De Paola, Maria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2015. "Gender Differences in Reaction to Psychological Pressure: Evidence from Tennis Players," IZA Discussion Papers 9315, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    8. Nicolas Houy & Jean-Philippe Nicolaï & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Always doing your best? Effort and performance in dynamic settings," Working Papers halshs-01686501, HAL.
    9. Bradley J. Ruffle & Oscar Volij, 2016. "First-mover advantage in best-of series: an experimental comparison of role-assignment rules," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 45(4), pages 933-970, November.
    10. Ambroise Decamps & Changxia Ke & Lionel Page, 2018. "How success breeds success," QuBE Working Papers 053, QUT Business School.
    11. Krumer, Alex & Megidish, Reut & Sela, Aner, 2014. "Optimal Allocations in Round-Robin Tournaments," CEPR Discussion Papers 9873, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Iqbal, Hamzah & Krumer, Alex, 2017. "Discouragement Effect and Intermediate Prizes in Multi-Stage Contests: Evidence from Tennis’s Davis Cup," Economics Working Paper Series 1719, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    13. repec:eee:corfin:v:44:y:2017:i:c:p:506-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jörg Franke, 2012. "The incentive effects of levelling the playing field -- an empirical analysis of amateur golf tournaments," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(9), pages 1193-1200, March.
    15. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Krumer, Alex & Rosenboim, Mosi & Shapir, Offer Moshe, 2017. "Choking under pressure and gender: Evidence from professional tennis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-190.
    16. Fu, Qiang & Ke, Changxia & Tan, Fangfang, 2015. "“Success breeds success” or “Pride goes before a fall”?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 57-79.
    17. Jennifer Brown & Dylan B. Minor, 2011. "Selecting the Best? Spillover and Shadows in Elimination Tournaments," NBER Working Papers 17639, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Romain Gauriot & Lionel Page, 2014. "Does success breed success? A quasi-experiment on strategic momentum in dynamic contests," QuBE Working Papers 028, QUT Business School.
    19. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2013. "Leading-effect vs. Risk-taking in Dynamic Tournaments: Evidence from a Real-life Randomized Experiment," Discussion Papers in Economics 15452, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    20. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Krumer, Alex & Shapir, Offer Moshe, 2017. "Take a Chance on ABBA," IZA Discussion Papers 10878, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    21. Nicolas Houy & Jean-Philippe Nicolaï & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Always doing your best? Effort and performance in dynamic settings," Working Papers 1736, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    22. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Krumer, Alex & Shtudiner, Ze'ev, 2017. "Psychological momentum and gender," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-81.

    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:tpr:restat:v:92:y:2010:i:3:p:689-692. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kristin Waites). General contact details of provider: http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.