The Winning Probability of a Game and the Importance of Points in Tennis Matches

References

• Barnett, T., Brown, A., & Clarke, S. R. (2004). Optimal use of tennis resources. Seventh Australasian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport (pp. 57–65). Palmerston Nth, New Zealand: Massey University.
   Google Scholar
• Broadie, M. (2012). Assessing golfer performance on the PGA TOUR. Interfaces, 42(2), 146–165. doi:10.1287/inte.1120.0626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukiet, B., Harold, E. R., & Palacios, J. L. (1997). A Markov chain approach to baseball. Operations Research, 45(1), 14–23. doi:10.1287/opre.45.1.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croucher, J. S. (1986). The conditional probability of winning games of tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(1), 23–26. doi:10.1080/02701367.1986.10605384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaassen, F. J., & Magnus, J. R. (2001). Are points in tennis independent and identically distributed? Evidence from a dynamic binary panel data model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(454), 500–509. doi:10.1198/016214501753168217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, G., & O’Donoghue, P. (2012). The probability of winning break points in Grand Slam men’s singles tennis. European Journal of Sport Science, 12(6), 462–468. doi:10.1080/17461391.2011.577239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ley, C., Dominicy, Y., & Bruneel, W. (2018). Mutual point-winning probabilities (MPW): A new performance measure for table tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(23), 2684–2690. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1400261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, S. M., Liu, C. C., Tan, Y., & Ma, S. C. (2013). Winning matches in Grand Slam men’s singles: An analysis of player performance-related variables from 1991 to 2008. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(11), 1147–1155. doi:10.1080/02640414.2013.775472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, C. (1977). The most important points in tennis. In S. P. Ladany & R. E. Machol (Eds.), Optimal Strategies in Sport (pp. 130–140). New York, NY: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, P. K., & Aslam, K. (2006). Monte Carlo tennis. SIAM Review, 48(4), 722–742. doi:10.1137/050640278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, P. K., & Aslam, K. (2009). Monte Carlo tennis: A stochastic Markov chain model. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 5(3). doi:10.2202/1559-0410.1169
   Google Scholar
• Newton, P. K., & Keller, J. B. (2005). Probability of winning at tennis I. Theory and data. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 114(3), 241–269. doi:10.1111/sapm.2005.114.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue, P. G. (2001). The most important points in Grand Slam singles tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(2), 125–131. doi:10.1080/02701367.2001.10608942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palut, Y., & Zanone, P. G. (2005). A dynamical analysis of tennis: Concepts and data. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(10), 1021–1032. doi:10.1080/02640410400021682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollard, G. H. (1983). An analysis of classical and tiebreaker tennis. Australian Journal of Statistics, 25(3), 496–505. doi:10.1111/anzs.1983.25.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Riddle, L. H. (1988). Probability models for tennis scoring systems. Applied Statistics, 37(1), 63–75. doi:10.2307/2347494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackmann, J. (2019). Jeff Sackmann’s tennis point-by-point data [Data file]. Retrieved from https://github.com/JeffSackmann.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, R. W. (1970). A mathematical model for evaluating scoring systems with specific reference to tennis. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 41(4), 552–561. doi:10.1080/10671188.1970.10615015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varshney, K. (2014, August 24–27). An analysis of losing unimportant points in tennis. KDD Workshop on Large Scale Sports Analytics, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B., Rodenberg, M. R., & Sackmann, J. (2013). Incentives in best of n contests: Quasi-Simpson’s paradox in tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 13(3), 790–802. doi:10.1080/24748668.2013.11868689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar