Comments on: False Starts

By: Beijing: Day 5 – WHAT I BELIEVE

Beijing: Day 5 – WHAT I BELIEVE — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:30:21 +0000

[...] 1. Reading a). The key for designing any policy/mechanism is to get the incentive right. False Starts: http://cheaptalk.org/2011/08/28/false-starts/ [...]

By: Les liens du matin (93) « Rationalité Limitée

Les liens du matin (93) « Rationalité Limitée — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:29:37 +0000

[...] « False Starts » – Cheap [...]

By: banjosupreme

banjosupreme — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:10:38 +0000

I disagree with the very idea that Bolt’s disqualification illustrates that the system is flawed.

Swimming has a similarly tough policy and everyone accepts it. The times in short swims are just as closely bunched together as the times in the 100m in track so the incentive to get the extra fraction of a second at the start should be on par.

The only difference is that in one case the policy has more history. I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that FINA change the rules if Michael Phelps was to be DQed at the next Olympics.

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:47:50 +0000

wouldn’t penalising a false start by moving the runner back, for example, one metre be another option?

By: World Track and Field: So close to an incident-free evening

World Track and Field: So close to an incident-free evening — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:30:53 +0000

[...] A brief history of the false-start rule (intriguing discussion here): [...]

By: Mild Speculation

Mild Speculation — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:20:19 +0000

Great post. Along the lines of track and field rules, I’m also curious about the tailwind limit for world records (2.0 m/s). If we assume a gradual improvement each year in training and technology that leads to slightly faster average times, we might expect a slow but steady trickle of world records (though this is more common in swimming (ignoring the high-tech suits that set almost every record in 2009 before being banned), which is further away from maturity as a sport than track and field).

If there were no wind limit, I’d guess that the variance in wind would make world records less predictable, and of course less likely to occur at international championship events. But, depending on the distribution of wind speed, maybe records would drop by larger amounts, when they do occur. A downside is that the sport might degenerate into the skill of not falling while being pushed by a hurricane-level tail wind.

Question: if the world record drops from x to x-epsilon from time 0 to time 1, what path (a) gives the optimal utility to viewers or (b) attracts most attention to the sport? A steady rate, or a plateau followed by a Bolt-sized chunk? Maybe the answers to (a) and (b) are different.

By: Dotan Persitz

Dotan Persitz — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:18 +0000

Hi,

Very interesting!!!

One comment – the first suggestion is prone to strategic group considerations. Suppose that Tyson Gay and Usain Bolt are the two main contenders. Now, Gay is the first to false start. I bet you that one of the other Jamaicans in the competition (and there are usually 3 in the finals) will false start just to eliminate Gay to the benefit of Bolt.

Group strategy occurs all the time in the long run distances. Currently it involves Ethiopia vs. Kenya vs. Morocco but the first famous example (that I can recall) is Ethiopia against the rest of the world in the 5000m in the 1980 Moscow Olympics – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02PCeZqnmxY (jump to 07:30 to see how one Ethiopian runner clears the inner lane to his teammate. The teammate won while the angle finished last.)

I believe that the second solution is an achievable first best (which is used, for example, in horse racing).

Thanks,

Dotan