This article provides evidence for mixed strategy play in a natural setting, using data from penalty kicking in professional German soccer. A penalty kick is a two-person constant-sum game. We distinguish two strategies for both players, namely, choosing left or right and verify empirically that the two main requirements for the existence of a Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies are met: (1) the expected payoffs are equal across strategies and (2) we cannot reject the hypothesis that players choose their actions randomly.
AytonP.FischerI. (2004). The hot-hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness?Memory and Cognition, 32, 1369–1378.
2.
BaumannF.FrieheT.WedowM. (2011). General ability and specialization: Evidence from penalty kicks in soccer. Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 81–105.
3.
BeckerW.BlechschmidtV. (1995). Antizipation beim Torwartverhalten. In: GerischG. (ed.) Psychologie im Fußball. Beiträge und Analysen zum Fußballsport. Schriften der Deutschen Vereinigung für Sportwissenschaft, 68, 81–98.
4.
BinmoreK. (2007). Playing for real: A text on game theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BinmoreK.SwierzbinskiJ.ProulxC. (2001). Does minimax work? An experimental study. Economic Journal, 111, 445–464.
6.
CamererC. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
ChiapporiP.LevittS.GrosecloseT. (2002). Testing mixed-strategy equilibria when players are heterogeneous: The case of penalty kicks in soccer. American Economic Review, 92, 1138–1151.
8.
ColomaG. (2007). Penalty kicks in soccer: An alternative methodology for testing mixed-strategy equilibria. Journal of Sports Economics, 8, 530–545.
9.
DuttaP. K. (1999). Strategies and games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2010). Laws of the game 2010/2011. Zurich, Switzerland: Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Zurich, Switzerland.
11.
GilovichT.TverskyA.ValloneR. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314.
12.
HsuS.HuangC.TangC. (2007). Minimax play at Wimbledon: Comment. American Economic Review, 97, 517–523.
13.
KareevY. (1992). Not that bad after all: Generation of random sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1189–1194.
14.
KellerD.HennemannM.-C.AlegriaJ. (1979). Fußball: Der Elfmeter. Leistungssport, 9, 394–298.
15.
KibeleA. (2013). Elfmeter: Zum aktuellen Forschungsstand einer bedeutsamen Standardsituation im Fußballspiel. Leistungssport, 6, 46–50.
16.
KuhnW. (1985). Handlungsstrategien beim Strafstoß. In HahnE.SchockK. (Eds.), Beiträge zur Kognition und Motorik (pp. 132–139). Cologne, Germany: BPS.
17.
LevittS. D.ListJ. A.ReileyD. H. (2010). What happens in the field stays in the field: Exploring whether professionals play minimax in laboratory experiments. Econometrica, 78, 1413–1434.
18.
LevittS. D.ListJ. A.SadoffS. D. (2011). Checkmate: Exploring backward induction among chess players. American Economic Review, 101, 975–990.
19.
LopesL.OdenG. (1987). Distinguishing between random and non-random events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 392–400.
20.
LoyR. (1998). Handlungsstrategien von Torhütern und Schützen in der Strafstoßsituation des Fußballsports. In Bäumler & Bauer, Sportwissenschaft rund um den Fußball. Hamburg, Germany: Czwalina Verlag.
21.
MorgensternO.von NeumannJ. (1947). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
MoryaE.BigatãoH.LeesA.RanvaudR. (2005). Evolving penalty kick strategies: World cup and club matches 2000–2002. In Science and football V: The Proceedings of the fifth world congress on sports science and football (pp. 241–247). London and New York: Routledge.
23.
NashJ. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 36, 48–49.
24.
NashJ. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics, 54, 286–295.
25.
NeuringerA. (1986). Can people behave “randomly”? The role of feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 62–75.
26.
Palacios-HuertaI. (2002). Professionals play minimax: Appendix. Mimeo. Providence, RI: Brown University.
27.
Palacios-HuertaI. (2003). Professionals play minimax. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 395–415.
28.
Palacios-HuertaI.VolijO. (2008). Experientia docet: Professionals play minimax in laboratory experiments. Econometrica, 76, 71–115.
29.
Palacios-HuertaI.VolijO. (2009). Field centipedes. American Economic Review, 99, 1619–1635.
30.
PearsonK. (1900). On a criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine, 5, 157–175.
31.
RapoportA.BudescuD. V. (1992). Generation of random binary series in strictly competitive games. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 352–364.
32.
RapoportA.BudescuD. V. (1997). Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 603–617.
33.
SavelsberghG. J.Van der KampJ.WilliamsA. M.WardP. (2005). Anticipation and visual search behaviour in expert soccer goalkeepers. Ergonomics, 48, 1686–1697.
34.
SavelsberghG. J.WilliamsA. M.KampJ. V. D.WardP. (2002). Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 279–287.
35.
SiegelS.CastellanJ. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
36.
WalkerM.WoodersJ. (2001). Minimax play at Wimbledon. American Economic Review, 91, 1521–15382.
37.
WoodersJ. (2010). Does experience teach? Professionals and minimax play in the lab. Econometrica, 78, 1143–1154.
