Strategy and Paradoxes of Borda Count in Formula 1 Racing

Kaiser, Brian

doi:10.7206/dec.1733-0092.124

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lasek et al [21] listed several methods for the "optimization" of a team's position in the FIFA rankings that include choosing the number of matches, selecting the ideal opponents, avoiding friendlies, and creating score-improving coalitions. Wang and Vandebroek [2] further analyzed such strategic opportunities; as did Kaiser [22,23] in another sport.…”

Section: Paradoxes and Strategic Manipulabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How Strong Are Soccer Teams? The “Host Paradox” and Other Counterintuitive Properties of FIFA’s Former Ranking System

Kamiński

2022

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I investigate the paradoxes associated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) point-based ranking of national soccer teams. The ranking has been plagued with paradoxes that incentivize teams to avoid playing friendly matches, i.e., matches that are not part of any official FIFA tournament or preliminaries, and applying other counterintuitive strategies. The most spectacular paradox was the dramatic underrating of the hosts of major tournaments. For a long time, host teams, which were absent from preliminary matches, would play only friendly matches that awarded few points. Here, I present three models that estimate the magnitude of the resulting “host effect” at 14.2–16 positions. Such an estimate counteracts the intuition that a large investment in hosting a tournament should result in an improvement in the host team’s standing. However, as discussed here, a given host’s low ranking could decrease interest in the tournament, and likely result in a major loss of advertisement revenue.

show abstract

Section: Paradoxes and Strategic Manipulabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How Strong Are Soccer Teams? The “Host Paradox” and Other Counterintuitive Properties of FIFA’s Former Ranking System

Kamiński

2022

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus it has reduced the threat of early clinch-and has simultaneously enhanced the danger of winning without being first. Clearly, there exists a bargain between excitement at the level of individual races and over the whole season, which could be a potential explanation for the continuous changes in the Formula One points scoring systems (Haigh, 2009;Kaiser, 2019;Kondratev et al, 2022).…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations

Csató

2022

Journal of Sports Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In some cases even the slightest change in criteria weights may lead to a diametrically different ranking of alternatives and/or the change of the best one, see e.g. [17], and this is the case when natural uncertainties in the evaluation of criteria or alternatives arise. NASA belongs among institutions famous for their meticulous approach to the space exploration and problem solving in general.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Monte Carlo weights in multiple criteria decision analysis

Mazurek

Strzałka²

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In multiple-criteria decision making/aiding/analysis (MCDM/MCDA) weights of criteria constitute a crucial input for finding an optimal solution (alternative). A large number of methods were proposed for criteria weights derivation including direct ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparisons, entropy method, standard deviation method, and so on. However, the problem of correct criteria weights setting persists, especially when the number of criteria is relatively high. The aim of this paper is to approach the problem of determining criteria weights from a different perspective: we examine what weights’ values have to be for a given alternative to be ranked the best. We consider a space of all feasible weights from which a large number of weights in the form of n−tuples is drawn randomly via Monte Carlo method. Then, we use predefined dominance relations for comparison and ranking of alternatives, which are based on the set of generated cases. Further on, we provide the estimates for a sample size so the results could be considered robust enough. At last, but not least, we introduce the concept of central weights and the measure of its robustness (stability) as well as the concept of alternatives’ multi-dominance, and show their application to a real-world problem of the selection of the best wind turbine.

show abstract

Strategy and Paradoxes of Borda Count in Formula 1 Racing

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

How Strong Are Soccer Teams? The “Host Paradox” and Other Counterintuitive Properties of FIFA’s Former Ranking System

How Strong Are Soccer Teams? The “Host Paradox” and Other Counterintuitive Properties of FIFA’s Former Ranking System

A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations

On the Monte Carlo weights in multiple criteria decision analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About