When to challenge a call in tennis: A Markov decision process approach
-
Vamsi K. Nadimpalli
Abstract
In this paper, we develop a Markov decision process (MDP) model to determine when a player should challenge a line call in a game of tennis, if the objective is to maximize the probability of winning the game. The parameters in the model include the relative strength of the players and the fallibility of the officials. The player’s decision depends on the the current score, the number of challenges remaining, the outcome of a successful challenge, and his confidence that the line call is incorrect. The model developed is a multi-chain MDP operating under the long-run average cost criterion. We also performed extensive numerical studies when the player has one challenge remaining, varying the player strengths and the fallibility levels. These studies imply some general intuitive challenge strategies but also exhibit unusual strategic behavior in some game states. For example, in some states it is not optimal for very weak or very strong players to challenge calls. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the challenge decision is not “unimodal” as a function of the player’s strength, i.e., there may be multiple decision thresholds with respect to this parameter.
We would like to thank the anonymous review team for helpful comments that improved the paper greatly. Thanks also goes to Eric Bickel at the University of Texas at Austin for his insight and advice on this research.
References
Abramitzky, R., L. Einav, S. Kolkowitz, and R. Mill. 2012. “On the Optimality of Line Call Challenges in Professional Tennis.” International Economic Review 53(3):939–964.10.1111/j.1468-2354.2012.00706.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bertsekas, D. P. 2007. Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, volume 1. 3rd ed. Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific.Search in Google Scholar
Bickel, J. E. 2009. “On the Decision to Take a Pitch.” Decision Analysis 6(3):186–193.10.1287/deca.1090.0145Search in Google Scholar
Brimberg, J. and B. Hurley. 1999. “The Penalty-Kick in Soccer: Does it Make Sense to Shoot at the Keeper?” Chance 12(2): 35–38.Search in Google Scholar
Carter, V. and R. E. Machol. 1978. “Optimal Strategies on Fourth Down.” Management Science 24(16):1758–1762.10.1287/mnsc.24.16.1758Search in Google Scholar
Clarke, S. R. 1988. “Dynamic Programming in One-Day Cricket – Optimal Scoring Rates.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 39:331–337.10.1057/jors.1988.60Search in Google Scholar
Clarke, S. R. and J. M. Norman. 2012. “Optimal Challenges in Tennis.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 63: 1765–1772.10.1057/jors.2011.147Search in Google Scholar
Klaasen, J. G. M. and J. R. Magnus. 2001. “Are points in tennis independent and identically distributed? Evidence from a dynamic binary panel data model.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 96(454): 500–509.10.1198/016214501753168217Search in Google Scholar
Morris, C. 1977. “The Most Important Points in Tennis.” in Optimal Strategies in Sports, edited by S. P. Ladany and R. E. Machol. Amsterdam, North Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Nadimpalli, V. 2010. An average cost Markov decision process model to decide when to challenge a call in a tennis match, Master’s thesis, Graduate Program in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.Search in Google Scholar
Newton, P. K. and J. B. Keller. 2005. “Probability of Winning at Tennis I. Theory and data.” Studies in Applied Mathematics 114(3):241–269.10.1111/j.0022-2526.2005.01547.xSearch in Google Scholar
Norman, J. M. 1985. “Dynamic Programming in Tennis – When to Use a Fast Serve.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 36(1):75–77.Search in Google Scholar
Pollard, G., G. Pollard, T. Barnett, and J. Zeleznikow. 2005. “Applying Strategies to the Tennis Challenge System.” Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis 15(1):12–15.Search in Google Scholar
Puterman, M. L. Markov Decision Processes, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1994.10.1002/9780470316887Search in Google Scholar
Whitney, D., N. Wurnitsch, B. Hontiveros, and E. Louie. 2008. “Perceptual Mislocalization of Bouncing Balls by Professional Tennis Referees.” Current Biology 18(20):947–949.10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Willoughby, K. A. and K. J. Kostuk. 2012. “An Analysis of a Strategic Decision in the Sport of Curling.” Decision Analysis 2(1):58–63.10.1287/deca.1050.0032Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Scrambled experts: team handicaps and win probabilities for golf scrambles
- When to challenge a call in tennis: A Markov decision process approach
- Advanced putting metrics in golf
- Odd odds: The UEFA Champions League Round of 16 draw
- Various applications to a more realistic baseball simulator
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Scrambled experts: team handicaps and win probabilities for golf scrambles
- When to challenge a call in tennis: A Markov decision process approach
- Advanced putting metrics in golf
- Odd odds: The UEFA Champions League Round of 16 draw
- Various applications to a more realistic baseball simulator
