Selecting the Best? Spillover and Shadows in Elimination Tournaments

References

• Baik KH (1994) Effort levels in contests with two asymmetric players. Southern Econom. J. 61(2):3–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown J (2011) Quitters never win: The (adverse) incentive effects of competing with superstars. J. Political Econom. 119(5):982–1013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown J, Minor DB (2014) Selecting the best? Spillover and shadows in elimination tournaments. NBER Working Paper 17639, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cabral L (2003) R&D competition when firms choose variance. J. Econom. Management Strategy 12(1):139–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark DJ, Riis C (2001) Rank-order tournaments and selection. J. Econom. 73(2):167–191.Google Scholar
• Clark DJ, Riis C (2007) Contingent payments in selection contests. Rev. Econom. Design 11(2):125–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ederer F (2010) Feedback and motivation in dynamic tournaments. J. Econom. Management Strategy 19(3):733–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF (1970) Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. J. Finance 25(2):383–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forrest D, McHale I (2007) Anyone for tennis (betting)? Eur. J. Finance 13(8):751–768.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fu Q, Lu J (2012) The optimal multi-stage contests. Econom. Theory 51(2):351–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilsdorf KF, Sukhatme V (2008a) Testing Rosen’s sequential elimination tournament model: Incentives and player performance in professional. J. Sports Econom. 9(3):287–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilsdorf KF, Sukhatme V (2008b) Tournament incentives and match outcomes in women’s professional tennis. Appl. Econom. 40(18):2405–2412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• González-Díaz J, Gossner O, Rogers BW (2012) Performing best when it matters most: Evidence from professional tennis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 84(3):767–781.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groh C, Moldovanu B, Sela A, Sunde U (2012) Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments. Econom. Theory 49(1):59–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harbaugh R, Klumpp T (2005) Early round upsets and championship blowouts. Econom. Inquiry 43(2):316–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hvide HK (2002) Tournament rewards and risk taking. J. Labor Econom. 20(4):877–898.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hvide HK, Kristiansen EG (2003) Risk taking in selection contests. Games Econom. Behav. 42(1):172–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knoeber CR, Thurman WN (1994) Testing the theory of tournaments: An empirical analysis of Broiler production. J. Labor Econom. 12(2):155–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konrad KA (2009) Strategy and Dynamics in Contests (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (1986) Salaries and piece rates. J. Bus. 59(3):405–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J. Political Econom. 89(5):841–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malueg DA, Yates AJ (2010) Testing contest theory: Evidence from best-of-three tennis matches. Rev. Econom. Statist. 92(3):689–692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Minor DB (2011) Increasing effort through softening incentives. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• Moldovanu B, Sela A (2001) The optimal allocation of prizes in contests. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3):542–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosen S (1986) Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):701–715.Google Scholar
• Ryvkin D (2009) Tournaments of weakly heterogeneous players. J. Public Econom. Theory 11(5):819–855.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryvkin D (2010) The selection efficiency of tournaments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 206(3):667–675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryvkin D (2011) Fatigue in dynamic tournaments. J. Econom. Management Strategy 20(4):1011–1041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryvkin D, Ortmann A (2008) The predictive power of three prominent tournament formats. Management Sci. 54(3):492–504.Link, Google Scholar
• Schmitt P, Shupp R, Swope K, Cadigan J (2004) Multi-period rent-seeking contests with carryover: Theory and experimental evidence. Econom. Governance 5(3):187–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Searls DT (1963) On the probability of winning with different tournament procedures. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 58(304):1064–1081.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sela A, Erez E (2013) Dynamic contests with resource constraints. Soc. Choice Welfare 41(4):863–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spann M, Skiera B (2003) Internet-based virtual stock markets for business forecasting. Management Sci. 49(10):1310–1326.Link, Google Scholar
• Spann M, Skiera B (2008) Sports forecasting: A comparison of the forecast accuracy of prediction markets, betting odds and tipsters. J. Forecasting 28(1):55–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stracke R (2011) Multi-stage pairwise elimination contests with heterogeneous agents. Working paper, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Sunde U (2009) Heterogeneity and performance in tournaments: A test for incentive effects using professional tennis data. Appl. Econom. 41(25):3199–3208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szymanski S, Valletti TM (2005) Incentive effects of second prizes. Eur. J. Political Econom. 21(2):467–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G, eds. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (Texas A&M University Press, College Station), 97–112.Google Scholar
• Vaughan Williams L (1999) Information efficiency in betting markets: A survey. Bull. Econom. Res. 51(1):1–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker M, Wooders J (2001) Minimax play at Wimbledon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(5):1521–1538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodland B, Woodland L (1999) Expected utility, skewness and the baseball betting market. Appl. Econom. 31(3):337–345.Crossref, Google Scholar