A Simple Non-Markovian Computational Model of the Statistics of Soccer Leagues: Emergence and Scaling effects

We propose a novel algorithm that outputs the final standings of a soccer league, based on a simple dynamics that mimics a soccer tournament. In our model, a team is created with a defined potential(ability) which is updated during the tournament according to the results of previous games. The updated potential modifies a teams' future winning/losing probabilities. We show that this evolutionary game is able to reproduce the statistical properties of final standings of actual editions of the Brazilian tournament (Brasileir\~{a}o). However, other leagues such as the Italian and the Spanish tournaments have notoriously non-Gaussian traces and cannot be straightforwardly reproduced by this evolutionary non-Markovian model. A complete understanding of these phenomena deserves much more attention, but we suggest a simple explanation based on data collected in Brazil: Here several teams were crowned champion in previous editions corroborating that the champion typically emerges from random fluctuations that partly preserves the gaussian traces during the tournament. On the other hand, in the Italian and Spanish leagues only a few teams in recent history have won their league tournaments. These leagues are based on more robust and hierarchical structures established even before the beginning of the tournament. For the sake of completeness, we also elaborate a totally Gaussian model (which equalizes the winning, drawing, and losing probabilities) and we show that the scores of the "Brasileir\~{a}o" cannot be reproduced. Such aspects stress that evolutionary aspects are not superfluous in our modeling. Finally, we analyse the distortions of our model in situations where a large number of teams is considered, showing the existence of a transition from a single to a double peaked histogram of the final classification scores. An interesting scaling is presented for different sized tournaments.Comment: 18 pages, 9 figure

Who Can Win a Single-Elimination Tournament?

A single-elimination (SE) tournament is a popular way to select a winner in both sports competitions and in elections. A natural and well-studied question is the tournament fixing problem (TFP): given the set of all pairwise match outcomes, can a tournament organizer rig an SE tournament by adjusting the initial seeding so that their favorite player wins? We prove new sufficient conditions on the pairwise match outcome information and the favorite player, under which there is guaranteed to be a seeding where the player wins the tournament. Our results greatly generalize previous results. We also investigate the relationship between the set of players that can win an SE tournament under some seeding (so called SE winners) and other traditional tournament solutions. In addition, we generalize and strengthen prior work on probabilistic models for generating tournaments. For instance, we show that \emph{every} player in an $n$ player tournament generated by the Condorcet Random Model will be an SE winner even when the noise is as small as possible, $p=\Theta(\ln n/n)$; prior work only had such results for $p\geq \Omega(\sqrt{\ln n/n})$. We also establish new results for significantly more general generative models.Comment: A preliminary version appeared in Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 201

Entry into Winner-Take-All and Proportional-Prize Contests: An Experimental Study

This experiment compares the performance of two contest designs: a standard winnertake- all tournament with a single fixed prize, and a novel proportional-payment design in which that same prize is divided among contestants by their share of total achievement. We find that proportional prizes elicit more entry and more total achievement than the winner-take-all tournament. The proportional-prize contest performs better by limiting the degree to which heterogeneity among contestants discourages weaker entrants, without altering the performance of stronger entrants. These findings could inform the design of contests for technological and other improvements, which are widely used by governments and philanthropic donors to elicit more effort on targeted economic and technological development activities.performance pay, tournament, piece rate, tournament design, contest, experiments, risk aversion, feedback, gender

Mixed Tournaments, Common Shocks, and Disincentives: An Experimental Study

Two well-known hypotheses from the literature on tournaments are that (1) tournaments can filter out common shocks thereby reducing agents risk exposure; and (2) disincentive effects can arise when a tournament scheme is administered on a group of mixed ability agents. While handicapping and/or the creation of homogeneous groups have been suggested as mechanisms for mitigating disincentive effects, it is often impractical to use handicapping schemes and nearly impossible to create a completely homogeneous labor force. Hence, contract administrators who intend to use tournaments to elicit effort must be able to assess the positive effects of tournaments (eliminate common shocks) against the negative effects (disincentive effects). Using economic experiments, we find evidence of disincentive effects under tournaments, although these effects are not as strong as predicted. Moreover, tournaments can be effective at reducing earnings variability when common shocks are important. These results suggest that the benefits of risk reduction from eliminating common shocks might outweigh the disincentive effects arising from mixed tournaments.mixed tournaments, incentives, relative performance contracts, experimental economics, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, C91 D01, D81, D82, D86,

How to Play 3x3-Games A Strategy Method Experiment

We report an experiment that uses the strategy method (Selten 1967) to elicit subjects' general strategy for playing any 2-person 3x3-game with integer payoffs between 0 and 99. Each two subjects' strategies play 500000 games in each of the 5 tournaments. For games with pure strategy equilibria (ca. 80%), the frequency of pure strategy equilibrium play increases from 51% in the first to 74% in the last tournament, in which there is equilibrium play in 98% of all games with only one pure equilibrium. In games with more than one pure equilibrium, a tendency towards the selection of the one with the maximum joint payoff is observed. For games without pure equilibria, subjects’ strategies do not search for mixed equilibria. The strategy programs are based on much simpler strategic concepts combined in various ways. The simplest one is MAP, maximal average payoff, the strategy which maximizes the sum of the three payoffs obtainable against the possible choices of the other player. BR-MAP, the best reply to MAP, and BR-BR-MAP, the best reply to BR-MAP, are also important ingredients of the strategy programs. Together these three form a hierarchy to which we refer to as the best-reply cascade.2-person games, experimental economics

How to Play 3x3 Games: A Strategy Method Experiment

Using the strategy method (Selten 1967) we elicit subjects' strategies for playing any 2-person 3x3-game with integer payoffs between 0 and 99.In each of 5 tournaments, every strategy pair plays 500000 games.The frequency of pure strategy equilibrium play increases from 51% in the first to 74% in the last tournament, with the equilibria that maximize joint payoff being preferred when multiple exist.For games without pure equilibria, strategies are typically based on elements of the best-reply cascade: MAP (maximize the expected payoff against uniformly randomizing opponents), BR-MAP (best reply to MAP), and BR-BR-MAP (best reply to BR-MAP).game theory;experimental economics

Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts

This paper analyzes compensation schemes which pay according to an individual's ordinal rank in an organization rather than his output level. When workers are risk neutral, it is shown that wages based upon rank induce the same efficient allocation of resources as an incentive reward scheme based on individual output levels. Under some circumstances, risk-averse workers actually prefer to be paid on the basis of rank. In addition, if workers are heterogeneous inability, low-quality workers attempt to contaminate high-quality firms, resulting in adverse selection. However, if ability is known in advance, a competitive handicapping structure exists which allows all workers to compete efficiently in the same organization.

Mixed Tournaments, Common Shocks, and Disincentives: An Experimental Study

Experimental economics is used to investigate two important hypotheses proposed in the economics literature on tournaments. Specifically, we test for a hypothesized “disincentives effect” which can occur in tournaments with mixed ability agents. We also test the well known hypothesis that, when common shocks are an important source of risk, tournaments can filter out this common shock and reduce earnings risk to workers. We find that disincentive effects arose in our tournament experiments, although these effects are not as strong as we predicted in our theoretical model and simulations. We also find that tournaments can be very effective at reducing earnings variation when common shocks are important. Taken together, these results suggest that the benefits of risk reduction from eliminating common shocks might outweigh the disincentive effects arising from mixed tournaments. We also find that the difference in average earnings between low and high ability agents is greater under tournaments than under absolute performance contracts.mixed tournaments; incentives; relative performance contracts; experimental economics