...

投影片 1 - National Chi Nan University

by user

on
Category:

tennis

21

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

投影片 1 - National Chi Nan University
Is it unfair or discriminating that
those who are strong compete
against those who are weak?
Lessons from the tournaments of
ATP tennis game
2005 Wimbledon Tennis Open
W
200
£630,000
F
140
£315,000
SF
90
£157,500
QF
50
£81,900
R16
30
£44,100
R32
15
£25,510
R64
7
£15,440
R128
1
£9,450
Tournaments
• The players are effectively ranked on the
basis of their relative performance and not
on the absolute measure of performance,
and the winners get promoted whereas the
losers are passed over. Given the pay at
each level, the system creates a
tournament.
Favoring the Star Performers
• An apparent form of unfair discrimination in promotions when
those who have done well early in their careers are favored at
the later rounds.
• The highest-ranked players are given the easiest early rounds
in the beginning of elimination match.
• The purpose of such bias for reflecting the unfair favoritism is
to identify the ablest players.
• The effectiveness of elimination match is informational value
brought through the previous contests rather than luck.
– If the higher-ranked player beats the lower-ranked player, the winner of
this round will be conform to the expectation and the ranking system.
– If the higher-ranked player loses the first run, then the
disadvantageous low-ranked player will be promoted to the following
contests in order to verify the lucky effect while the high-ranked loser
should also be shocked for striving for perfection in order to deter the
advantage and quasi rents as a seeded player from the new entrants.
The inducement of effective
incentive
• The effort and performance in tournaments are sensitive
to the size and distribution of the prizes
• The higher prizes increased the higher level of effort and
performance.
• In an empirical study about the LPGA scores, raising the
total prize money by $100,000 (in 1984 dollars) lowered
each player’s score on average by 1.1 strokes over 72hole tournament.
• The effect occurred mostly in the later rounds near to the
champion even though the players might likely be tired
and so find maintaining the concentration more difficult.
• If the monetary gain to the first rather than the second is
much greater than the gain to the second rather than the
third, there is a greater marginal return to a player’s
increasing effort on the competition.
Illustration
return
degree
Managerial Lessons
• A match with equal strength (50-to-50)
– Winning by chance
• A match of wide gap in assumed ability
– Winning by a great stretch
• The high incentive to induce participation
– The advantage of being a winner
– The enough inducement of striving for perfection
• Open a window for challengers
– Junior players standing out of the qualification contests
– Wild-card players
• Drill yourselves rather than claim for a fair game
– The disadvantageous plays should make more efforts to defeat the
privileged winners.
References
• Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Michael L.
Bognanno (1990), “Do Tournaments Have
Incentive Effects?” Journal of Political
Economy, 98, December, pp.1307-24.
• Meyer, Margaret (1991), “Learning from
the Coarse Information: Biased Contests
and Career Profiles,” Review of Economic
Studies, 58, January, pp.15-41.
Fly UP