IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000137/016606.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incertidumbre y riesgo en los cobros desde el punto penal: un análisis aplicando la teoría de juegos

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Cotte Poveda
  • Julian Gutierrez López

Abstract

La incertidumbre y el riesgo juegan un papel preponderante en el momento de tomar la decisión de cobrar un tiro desde el punto penal. Las implicaciones de ganar un torneo de fútbol de alta competencia tienen efectos de senalización sobre los agentes que participan en los diferentes mercados. Este trabajo de investigación advierte que los cobros desde el punto penal no son una simple cuestión de azar y suerte, es una interacción que debe tener en cuenta entre otras muchas variables no solo la técnica, la preparación, las dotaciones de los participantes sino que debe ser una combinación de estrategias y probabilidades. Aplicando la Teoría de Juegos para los tres equipos más representativos de la liga de fútbol de Espana, – Real Madrid, Barcelona y el Atlético de Madrid – y utilizando los datos de la Primera División de Espana, Copa del Rey, Mundial de Clubes y la Champions League, todas estas competiciones correspondientes a la Temporada 2015-16 y Temporada 2014-15, se determinan las distintas estrategias y probabilidades que el cobrador debe dilucidar para anotar el gol en un cobro desde el punto penal y con ello contrarrestar las diferentes probabilidades y estrategias de las que dispone el arquero para atajar el lanzamiento.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Cotte Poveda & Julian Gutierrez López, 2015. "Incertidumbre y riesgo en los cobros desde el punto penal: un análisis aplicando la teoría de juegos," Serie de Documentos en Economía y Violencia 16606, Centro de Investigaciones en Violencia, Instituciones y Desarrollo Económico (VIDE).
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000137:016606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/cife/article/view/3217/3181
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2010. "Psychological Pressure in Competitive Environments: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2548-2564, December.
    2. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2014. "Beautiful Game Theory: How Soccer Can Help Economics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10260.
    3. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2008. "Experientia Docet: Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(1), pages 71-115, January.
    4. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2003. "Professionals Play Minimax," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 395-415.
    5. P.-A. Chiappori, 2002. "Testing Mixed-Strategy Equilibria When Players Are Heterogeneous: The Case of Penalty Kicks in Soccer," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1138-1151, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeanine Miklós-Thal & Hannes Ullrich, 2016. "Career Prospects and Effort Incentives: Evidence from Professional Soccer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1645-1667, June.
    2. Kocher, Martin G. & Lenz, Marc V. & Sutter, Matthias, 2010. "Psychological Pressure in Competitive Environments: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment: Comment," IZA Discussion Papers 4846, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Duffy, Sean & Naddeo, JJ & Owens, David & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and mixed strategies: On brains and minimax," MPRA Paper 71878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Nejat Anbarcı & Ching-Jen Sun & M. Utku Ünver, 2015. "Designing Practical and Fair Sequential Team Contests," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 871, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 15 Apr 2021.
    5. Anbarcı, Nejat & Sun, Ching-Jen & Ünver, M. Utku, 2021. "Designing practical and fair sequential team contests: The case of penalty shootouts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 25-43.
    6. Emara, Noha & Owens, David & Smith, John & Wilmer, Lisa, 2017. "Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-132.
    7. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2015. "Blind stealing: Experience and expertise in a mixed-strategy poker experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 186-206.
    8. Luigi Buzzacchi & Stefano Pedrini, 2014. "Does player specialization predict player actions? Evidence from penalty kicks at FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro Cup," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(10), pages 1067-1080, April.
    9. Fabrizio Germano & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2017. "Bounded rationality and correlated equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(3), pages 595-629, August.
    10. Heifetz, Aviad & Heller, Ruth & Ostreiher, Roni, 2021. "Do Arabian babblers play mixed strategies in a “volunteer’s dilemma”?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & David H. Reiley, 2010. "What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1413-1434, July.
    12. Bar-Eli, Michael & Krumer, Alex & Morgulev, Elia, 2020. "Ask not what economics can do for sports - Ask what sports can do for economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.
    14. Kenneth Kovash & Steven D. Levitt, 2009. "Professionals Do Not Play Minimax: Evidence from Major League Baseball and the National Football League," NBER Working Papers 15347, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Avugos, Simcha & Azar, Ofer H. & Sher, Eran & Gavish, Nadav & Bar-Eli, Michael, 2020. "The Right-Oriented Bias in Soccer Penalty Shootouts," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Spiliopoulos, Leonidas, 2013. "Beyond fictitious play beliefs: Incorporating pattern recognition and similarity matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 69-85.
    17. Jim Downey & Joseph McGarrity, 2015. "Pick off Throws, Stolen Bases, and Southpaws: A Comparative Static Analysis of a Mixed Strategy Game," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 43(3), pages 319-335, September.
    18. Arrondel, Luc & Duhautois, Richard & Laslier, Jean-François, 2019. "Decision under psychological pressure: The shooter's anxiety at the penalty kick," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 22-35.
    19. Virtue Ekhosuehi, 2018. "On the one-shot two-person zero-sum game in football from a penalty kicker’s perspective," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(3), pages 17-27.
    20. Mueller-Langer Frank & Andreoli-Versbach Patrick, 2017. "Leading-Effect, Risk-Taking and Sabotage in Two-Stage Tournaments: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 237(1), pages 1-28, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Microeconomía; Teoría de Juegos; Incertidumbre y Riesgo; Modelos de Programación.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis

    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:col:000137:016606. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Alexander Cotte Poveda (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.