Consistency is sought after by professional golfers and commended by analysts, but tournament theory predicts that inconsistency is beneficial when the reward scheme is top heavy. Simulating a typical tournament and adjusting each player's standard deviation, the author finds that all players earn more prize money and win more tournaments when they are less consistent—even with a slightly worse average score. Players are found to have some control over the variability of their scores: playing safer with a substantial lead and playing riskier when in danger of missing the cut. Inconsistency is not appreciated, but it is rewarding.
Clark, R.D. (2006). Is the independence of golf scores for professional golfers a statistical artifact? Perceptual and Motor Skills , 103(2), 636-638.
2.
Diaz, J. (2002, November). The man with [almost] everything. Golf Digest, 53(11), 100-110.
3.
Ehrenberg, R., & Bognanno, M. (1990). Do tournaments have incentive effects? Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1307-1324.
4.
Ehrenberg, R.G., Pieper, P.J., & Willis, R.A. (1998). Do economics departments with lower tenure probabilities pay higher faculty salaries? Review of Economics and Statistics , 80(4), 503-512.
5.
Hood, M. (2006). The purse is not enough: Modeling professional golfers' entry decision. Journal of Sports Economics, 7(3), 289-308.
6.
Hvide, H.K. (2002). Tournament rewards and risk taking. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4), 877-898.
7.
Rhoads, T.A. (2007). Labor supply on the PGA Tour: The effect of higher expected earnings and stricter exemption status on annual entry decisions . Journal of Sports Economics, 8(1), 83-98.
8.
Shmanske, S. (2007). Consistency or heroics: Skewness, performance, and earnings on the PGA TOUR. Atlantic Economic Journal, 35(4), 463-471.
9.
Taylor, J. (2003). Risk-taking behavior in mutual fund tournaments . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 50(3), 373-383.
10.
von Allman, P. (2001). Is the reward system in NASCAR efficient?Journal of Sports Economics, 2(1), 62-79.
