IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jqsprt/v5y2009i3n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monte Carlo Tennis: A Stochastic Markov Chain Model

Author

Listed:
  • Newton Paul K

    (University of Southern California)

  • Aslam Kamran

    (University of Southern California)

Abstract

We develop a stochastic Markov chain model to obtain the probability density function (pdf) for a player to win a match in tennis. By analyzing both individual player and 'field' data (all players lumped together) obtained from the 2007 Men's Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) circuit, we show that a player's probability of winning a point on serve and while receiving serve varies from match to match and can be modeled as Gaussian distributed random variables. Hence, our model uses four input parameters for each player. The first two are the sample means associated with each player's probability of winning a point on serve and while receiving serve. The third and fourth parameter for each player are the standard deviations around the mean, which measure a player's consistency from match to match and from one surface to another (e.g. grass, hard courts, clay). Based on these Gaussian distributed input variables, we use Monte Carlo simulations to determine the probability density functions for each of the players to win a match. By using input data for each of the players vs. the entire field, we describe the outcome of simulations based on head-to-head matches focusing on four top players currently on the men's ATP circuit. We also run full tournament simulations of the four Grand Slam events and gather statistics for each of these four player's frequency of winning each of the events and we describe how to use the results as the basis for ranking methods with natural probabilistic interpretations.

Suggested Citation

  • Newton Paul K & Aslam Kamran, 2009. "Monte Carlo Tennis: A Stochastic Markov Chain Model," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-44, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:7
    DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1169
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1559-0410.1169?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark E. Glickman, 1999. "Parameter Estimation in Large Dynamic Paired Comparison Experiments," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 48(3), pages 377-394.
    2. Mark Glickman, 2001. "Dynamic paired comparison models with stochastic variances," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 673-689.
    3. Mark Walker & John Wooders, 2001. "Minimax Play at Wimbledon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1521-1538, December.
    4. O'Malley A. James, 2008. "Probability Formulas and Statistical Analysis in Tennis," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. On probability of winning a tennis match
      by Daniel Korzekwa in Betting Exchange Research Blog on 2012-02-04 15:29:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pasteur R. Drew & Janning Michael C., 2011. "Monte Carlo Simulation for High School Football Playoff Seed Projection," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-10, May.
    2. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    3. Bizzozero, Paolo & Flepp, Raphael & Franck, Egon, 2016. "The importance of suspense and surprise in entertainment demand: Evidence from Wimbledon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 47-63.
    4. Gonzalez-Cabrera Ivan & Herrera Diego Dario & González Diego Luis, 2020. "Generalized model for scores in volleyball matches," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 41-55, March.
    5. Noubary Reza D. & Coles Drue, 2011. "Rule of Tangent for Win-By-Two Games," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Goldner Keith, 2012. "A Markov Model of Football: Using Stochastic Processes to Model a Football Drive," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Pettigrew Stephen, 2014. "How the West will be won: using Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the effects of NHL realignment," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 345-355, September.
    8. Marc Garnica-Caparrós & Daniel Memmert & Fabian Wunderlich, 2022. "Artificial data in sports forecasting: a simulation framework for analysing predictive models in sports," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 551-580, September.
    9. Heiny Erik L. & Heiny Robert Lowell, 2014. "Stochastic model of the 2012 PGA Tour season," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 367-379, December.
    10. Galeano, Javier & Gómez, Miguel-Ángel & Rivas, Fernando & Buldú, Javier M., 2022. "Using Markov chains to identify player’s performance in badminton," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P2).
    11. Fabian Wunderlich & Daniel Memmert, 2018. "The Betting Odds Rating System: Using soccer forecasts to forecast soccer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Zhou, Yunjing & Zong, Shouxin & Cao, Run & Gómez, Miguel-Ángel & Chen, Chuqi & Cui, Yixiong, 2023. "Using network science to analyze tennis stroke patterns," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Chan Timothy C.Y. & Singal Raghav, 2018. "A Bayesian regression approach to handicapping tennis players based on a rating system," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 131-141, September.

    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. Hua, Hsuan-Fu & Chang, Ching-Ju & Lin, Tse-Ching & Weng, Ruby Chiu-Hsing, 2024. "Rating players by Laplace’s approximation and dynamic modeling," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 1152-1165.
    2. Alexandra Grand & Regina Dittrich & Brian Francis, 2015. "Markov models of dependence in longitudinal paired comparisons: an application to course design," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 99(2), pages 237-257, April.
    3. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.
    4. Blaž Krese & Erik Štrumbelj, 2021. "A Bayesian approach to time-varying latent strengths in pairwise comparisons," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Devlin Stephen & Treloar Thomas & Creagar Molly & Cassels Samuel, 2021. "An iterative Markov rating method," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, June.
    6. Santos-Fernandez Edgar & Wu Paul & Mengersen Kerrie L., 2019. "Bayesian statistics meets sports: a comprehensive review," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 289-312, December.
    7. Kovalchik, Stephanie, 2020. "Extension of the Elo rating system to margin of victory," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1329-1341.
    8. Stokes Tyrel & Bagga Gurashish & Kroetch Kimberly & Kumagai Brendan & Welsh Liam, 2024. "A generative approach to frame-level multi-competitor races," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 20(4), pages 365-383.
    9. Mitchell J. Lovett & Ron Shachar, 2011. "The Seeds of Negativity: Knowledge and Money," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 430-446, 05-06.
    10. Beaudoin, David & Swartz, Tim, 2018. "A computationally intensive ranking system for paired comparison data," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 105-112.
    11. Akifumi Kijima & Koji Kadota & Keiko Yokoyama & Motoki Okumura & Hiroo Suzuki & R C Schmidt & Yuji Yamamoto, 2012. "Switching Dynamics in an Interpersonal Competition Brings about “Deadlock” Synchronization of Players," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Oscar Volij & Casilda Lasso de la Vega, 2016. "The Value Of A Draw In Quasi-Binary Matches," Working Papers 1601, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    13. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2004. "Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental Hide-and-Seek Games," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000345, UCLA Department of Economics.
    14. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2004. "Do the “Three-Point Victory†and “Golden Goal†Rules Make Soccer More Exciting?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 5(2), pages 169-185, May.
    15. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    16. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2022. "The development of randomization and deceptive behavior in mixed strategy games," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), pages 825-862, May.
    17. Katja Seim & Michael Sinkinson, 2016. "Mixed pricing in online marketplaces," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 129-155, June.
    18. Subhasish Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 833-861, April.
    19. Benjamin J. Dyson, 2019. "Behavioural Isomorphism, Cognitive Economy and Recursive Thought in Non-Transitive Game Strategy," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Germán Coloma, 2007. "Penalty Kicks in Soccer," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(5), pages 530-545, October.

    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:bpj:jqsprt:v:5:y:2009:i:3:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.