What happens in the field stays in the field: Exploring whether professionals play minimax in laboratory experiments

Econometrica

Volumn 78, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1413-1434

  Levitt, Steven D ^a   List, John A ^a   Reiley, David H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Laboratory experiments; Minimax; Mixed strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955149481     PISSN: 00129682     EISSN: 14680262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3982/ECTA7405     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Brayer A R. An Experimental Analysis of Some Variables of Minimax Theory. Behavioral Science 1964, 9:33-44. 10.1002/bs.3830090106
2. Brown J N, Rosenthal R W. Testing the Minimax Hypothesis: A Re-Examination of O'Neill's Game Experiment. Econometrica 1990, 58:1065-1081. 10.2307/2938300
3. Budescu D V, Rapoport A. Generation of Random Series in Two-Person Strictly Competitive Games. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1992, 121:352-363.
4. Chiappori P A, Levitt S, Groseclose T. Testing Mixed Strategy Equilibria When Players Are Heterogeneous: The Case of Penalty Kicks in Soccer. American Economic Review 2002, 92:1138-1151. 10.1257/00028280260344678
5. Coricelli G. Strategic Interaction in Iterated Zero-Sum Games. 2004, http://economics.eller.arizona.edu/downloads/working_papers/coricelli.pdf, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Arizona, Available at
6. Fehr E, List J A. The Hidden Costs and Returns of Incentives: Trust and Trustworthiness Among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association 2004, 2:743-771. 10.1162/1542476042782297
7. Fox J. The Learning of Strategies in a Simple, Two-Person Zero-Sum Game Without Saddlepoint. Behavioural Science 1972, 17:300-308. 10.1002/bs.3830170305
8. Friedman L. Optimal Bluffing Strategies in Poker. Management Science 1971, 17:B764-B771. 10.1287/mnsc.17.12.B764
9. Gibbons J D, Chakraborti S. Nonparametric Statistical Inference 2003, Fourth Ed., New York, Dekker
10. Haigh M, List J A. Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Finance 2005, 60:523-534. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00737.x
11. Harrison G W, List J A. Field Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42:1009-1055. 10.1257/0022051043004577
12. Harrison G W, List J A. Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse. Economic Journal 2010, forthcoming
13. Hirschberg D, Levitt S, List J. Poker Players Equate Mixed-Strategy Payoffs in the Field. 2008, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Chicago
14. Hsu S-H, Huang C-Y, Tang C-T. Minimax Play at Wimbledon: Comment. American Economic Review 2007, 97:517-523. 10.1257/aer.97.1.517
15. Levitt S D, List J A, Reiley D H. What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments. 2007, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Chicago
16. Levitt S D, List J A, Reiley D H. Supplementary Appendix to 'What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments'. 2010, 78(Econometrica Supplemental Material). http://www.econometricsociety.org/ecta/Supmat/7405_instructions to experimental subjects.pdf
17. Lieberman B. Human Behavior in a Strictly Determined 3×3 Matrix Game. Behavioral Science 1960, 5:317-322.
18. Lieberman B. Experimental Studies of Conflict in Some Two-Person and Three-Person Games. Mathematical Models in Small Group Processes 1962, 203-220. Criswell J HSolomon HSuppes P. ed. by, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press
19. Loewenstein G. Experimental Economics From the Vantage-Point of Behavioral Economics. Economic Journal 1999, 109:F23-F34. 10.1111/1468-0297.00400
20. Messick D M. Interdependent Decision Strategies in Zero-Sum Games: A Computer-Controlled Study. Behavioral Science 1967, 12:33-48. 10.1002/bs.3830120105
21. O'Neill B. A Non-Metric Test of the Minimax Theory of Two-Person Zerosum Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1987, 84:2106-2109. 10.1073/pnas.84.7.2106
22. O'Neill B. Comments on Brown and Rosenthal's Reexamination. Econometrica 1991, 59:503-507. 10.2307/2938267
23. Palacios-Huerta I. Professionals Play Minimax. Review of Economic Studies 2003, 70:395-415. 10.1111/1467-937X.00249
24. Palacios-Huerta I, Volij O. Experientia Docet: Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments. Econometrica 2008, 76:71-115. 10.1111/j.0012-9682.2008.00818.x
25. Rosenthal R W, Shachat J, Walker M. Hide and Seek in Arizona. International Journal of Game Theory 2003, 32:273-293. 10.1007/s001820300159
26. Shachat J, Swarthout T J. Do We Detect and Exploit Mixed Strategy Play by Opponents? Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 2004, 59:359-373. 10.1007/s001860400354
27. Spiliopoulos L. Do Repeated Game Players Detect Patterns in Opponents? Revisiting the Nyarko and Schotter Belief Elicitation Experiment. 2007, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2179, Paper 2179, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Available at
28. Von Neumann J. Zür Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen 1928, 100:295-320. 10.1007/BF01448847
29. Wagenaar W A. Serial Non-Randomness as a Function of Duration and Monotony of a Randomization Task. Acta Psychologica 1971, 35:78-87. 10.1016/0001-6918(71)90033-3
30. Walker M, Wooders J. Minimax Play at Wimbledon. American Economic Review 2001, 91:1521-1538.
31. Wooders J. Does Experience Teach? Professionals and Minimax Play in the Lab. 2008, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Arizona