The value of a draw

  • Casilda Lasso de la Vega
  • Oscar VolijEmail author
Research Article


We model a match as a recursive zero-sum game with three possible outcomes: Player 1 wins, player 2 wins, or there is a draw. We focus on matches whose point games also have three possible outcomes: Player 1 scores the point, player 2 scores the point, or the point is drawn in which case the point game is repeated. We show that a value of a draw can be attached to each state so that an easily computed stationary equilibrium exists in which players’ strategies can be described as minimax behavior in the point games induced by these values.


Matches Stochastic games Recursive games Draws 

JEL Classification

C72 C73 



Oscar Volij thanks the Department of Foundations of Economics Analysis I at the University of the Basque Country for its kind hospitality. This paper was partly written during his stay there.


  1. Apesteguia, J., Palacios-Huerta, I.: Psychological pressure in competitive environments: evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 100(5), 2548–2564 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Everett, H.: Recursive games. Contrib. Theory Games 3(39), 47–78 (1957)Google Scholar
  3. Flesch, J., Thuijsman, F., Vrieze, O.J.: Recursive repeated games with absorbing states. Math. Oper. Res. 21(4), 1016–1022 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gauriot, R., Page, L., Wooders, J.: Nash at Wimbledon: evidence from half a million serves. Technical Report, QuBE (2016)Google Scholar
  5. Gonzalez-Díaz, J., Palacios-Huerta, I.: Cognitive performance in competitive environments: evidence from a natural experiment. J. Public Econ. 139, 40–52 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mertens, J.F., Neyman, A.: Stochastic games. Int. J. Game Theory 10(2), 53–66 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Palacios-Huerta, I.: Professionals play minimax. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70(2), 395–415 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Puterman, M.L.: Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. Wiley, Hoboken (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schwalbe, U., Walker, P.: Zermelo and the early history of game theory. Games Econ. Behav. 34(1), 123–137 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shapley, L.S.: Stochastic games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAm 39(10), 1095–1100 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Thuijsman, F.: Optimality and equilibria in stochastic games. CWI Tracts 82, 1–107 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. Thuijsman, F., Vrieze, K.: Note on recursive games. In: Dutta, B., et al. (eds.) Game Theory and Economic Applications, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 389, pp. 133–145. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar
  13. Vieille, N.: Two-player stochastic games II: the case of recursive games. Isr. J. Math. 119(1), 93–126 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Walker, M., Wooders, J.: Minimax play at Wimbledon. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 1521–1538 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Walker, M., Wooders, J., Amir, R.: Equilibrium play in matches: binary Markov games. Games Econ. Behav. 71(2), 487–502 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zermelo, E.: Über eine anwendung der mengenlehre auf die theorie des schachspiels. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. 2, pp. 501–504. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1913)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Basque CountryBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Ben-Gurion University of the NegevBeer shevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations