IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v24y2023i4p526-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations

Author

Listed:
  • László Csató

Abstract

We study the trade-off between two risks for scoring rules used in sports competitions containing multiple contests: (1) the threat of early clinch when the title is clinched before the last contest(s) of the competition take place; and (2) the danger of winning the competition without finishing first in any contest. Four historical points scoring systems of the Formula One World Championship are compared with the family of geometric scoring rules. The current scheme seems to be a reasonable compromise close to the Pareto frontier. Our results contribute to the issue of choosing an optimal set of point values.

Suggested Citation

  • László Csató, 2023. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 526-545, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:24:y:2023:i:4:p:526-545
    DOI: 10.1177/15270025221134241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15270025221134241
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/15270025221134241?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Merlin, 2003. "The axiomatic characterization of majority voting and scoring rules," Post-Print halshs-00069506, HAL.
    2. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    3. Corona Francisco & Horrillo Juan de Dios Tena & Wiper Michael Peter, 2017. "On the importance of the probabilistic model in identifying the most decisive games in a tournament," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 11-23, March.
    4. J Bekker & W Lotz, 2009. "Planning Formula One race strategies using discrete-event simulation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(7), pages 952-961, July.
    5. Geenens, Gery, 2014. "On the decisiveness of a game in a tournament," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 156-168.
    6. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 2002. "Voting procedures," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 173-236, Elsevier.
    7. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    8. Pedro Garcia-del-Barrio & J. James Reade, 2022. "Does certainty on the winner diminish the interest in sport competitions? The case of formula one," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 1059-1079, August.
    9. Shmuel Nitzan & Ariel Rubinstein, 1981. "A further characterization of Borda ranking method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 153-158, January.
    10. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J. & Pfaffenberger, Roger C., 1994. "A stochastic dominance analysis of ranked voting systems with scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 78-85, April.
    11. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Peña, Teresa, 2013. "Aggregating preferences rankings with variable weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 348-355.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ausloos, Marcel, 2024. "Hierarchy selection: New team ranking indicators for cyclist multi-stage races," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 807-816.

    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. L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2021. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Papers 2101.05744, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    2. Csató, László, 2021. "Pontozási rendszerek szimulációs összehasonlítása [A simulatory comparison of the points systems]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 847-862.
    3. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2024. "Ranking voting systems and surrogate weights: Explicit formulas for centroid weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 967-976.
    4. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    5. Lederer, Patrick, 2024. "Bivariate scoring rules: Unifying the characterizations of positional scoring rules and Kemeny's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    6. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Positionalist voting rules: a general definition and axiomatic characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 85-116, June.
    7. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    8. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    9. O. Volij & M. Mahajne, 2020. "Pairwise Consensus And The Borda Rule," Working Papers 2016, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    10. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    11. Paolo Viappiani, 2024. "Volumetric Aggregation Methods for Scoring Rules with Unknown Weights," Post-Print hal-04440153, HAL.
    12. Kelly, Jerry S. & Qi, Shaofang, 2019. "Balancedness of social choice correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 59-67.
    13. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    14. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Variable-population voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 210-221.
    16. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2017. "The greatest unhappiness of the least number," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 637-655, December.
    17. László Csató, 2019. "An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 497-514, June.
    18. Guido Bonatti & Enrico Ivaldi & Riccardo Soliani, 2014. "Cultural, Relational and Social Participation in Italian Regions: Evidences from the Italian Context," Journal of Empirical Economics, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 193-207.
    19. Pivato, Marcus, 2014. "Formal utilitarianism and range voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 50-56.
    20. Corona, Francisco & Forrest, David & Tena, J.D. & Wiper, Michael, 2019. "Bayesian forecasting of UEFA Champions League under alternative seeding regimes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 722-732.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    competition design; Formula One; OR in sports; rank aggregation; scoring system;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • Z20 - Other Special Topics - - Sports Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:jospec:v:24:y:2023:i:4:p:526-545. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.