Cricket interruptus: Fairness and incentive in interruped cricket matches
We present a new adjustment rule for interrupted cricket matches that equalizes the probability of winning before and after the interruption. Our proposal differs from existing rules in the quantity preserved (the probability of winning), and also in the point at which it is measured (the time of interruption). We claim this is both fair and free of incentive effects. We give several examples of how our rule could have been applied in past matches, including some in which the ultimate result might have been different.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7, S. J. S. Sansanwal Marg, New Delhi - 110016|
Web page: http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mark Walker & John Wooders, 2001. "Minimax Play at Wimbledon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1521-1538, December.
- 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.
- David Romer, 2002. "It's Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say? A Dynamic Programming Analysis of Football Strategy," NBER Working Papers 9024, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ind:isipdp:02-07. 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: (Shamprasad M. Pujar)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.