Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments revisited

The paper addresses the problem of optimally matching heterogeneous players in a two-stage two-type Lazear–Rosen tournament in which the semifinal losers are eliminated. The organizer of the tournament can either choose two homogeneous semifinals—one between two strong players and the other one between two weak players—or two heterogeneous semifinals, each between one strong and one weak player. I identify conditions under which the organizer is strictly better off from two homogeneous semifinals if he wants to maximize total expected effort and the strong players’ win probability. This finding is contrary to both the typical procedure used in real sporting contests and previous results based on all-pay auctions and the Tullock contest. Hence, my findings point out that the optimal design of elimination tournaments crucially depends on the underlying contest-success technology.

[1]  Masaki Aoyagi Information Feedback in a Dynamic Tournament , 2003 .

[2]  Michael R. Baye,et al.  The all-pay auction with complete information , 1990 .

[3]  J. Atsu Amegashie,et al.  Some Results on Rent-Seeking Contests with Shortlisting , 2000 .

[4]  B. Moldovanu,et al.  Contests for Status , 2005, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Economic Contests: Comparative Reward Schemes , 1984, Journal of Labor Economics.

[6]  Kong-Pin Chen,et al.  Sabotages in Promotion Tournaments , 2003 .

[7]  Richard T. Holden,et al.  The nature of tournaments , 2007, Economic Theory.

[8]  Incentives vs. Selection in Promotion Tournaments: Can a Designer Kill Two Birds with One Stone? , 2011 .

[9]  B. Moldovanu,et al.  Carrots and Sticks: Prizes and Punishments in Contests , 2008 .

[10]  Uwe Sunde,et al.  Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments , 2012 .

[11]  Anja Schöttner,et al.  Fixed-prize tournaments versus first-price auctions in innovation contests , 2006 .

[12]  Andrew Schotter,et al.  Tournaments and Piece Rates: An Experimental Study , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  G. Turnbull,et al.  A collective tournament , 1996 .

[14]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Difference-Form Contests and the Robustness of All-Pay Auctions , 2000, Games Econ. Behav..

[15]  J. Atsu Amegashie,et al.  The design of rent-seeking competitions: Committees, preliminary and final contests , 1999 .

[16]  K. Baik Difference-form contest success functions and effort levels in contests , 1998 .

[17]  E. Lazear,et al.  Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  Margaret Meyer,et al.  Learning from Coarse Information: Biased Contests and Career Profiles , 1991 .

[19]  Kai A. Konrad,et al.  Strategy and Dynamics in Contests , 2009 .

[20]  Hans K. Hvide Tournament Rewards and Risk Taking , 1999, Journal of Labor Economics.

[21]  Kai A. Konrad,et al.  Orchestrating Rent Seeking Contests , 1999 .

[22]  David Wettstein,et al.  Innovative Activity and Sunk Cost , 2003 .

[23]  Tilman Klumpp,et al.  Early Round Upsets and Championship Blowouts , 2004 .

[24]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  Strategic Behavior in Contests , 1987 .