Reference health

Randomization and Serial Dependence in Professional Tennis Matches: Do Strategic Considerations, Player Rankings and Match Characteristics Matter?

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2830798
CiteStamped reference-health badge
58/58 checkable references clean · checked 2026-10-18

Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.

5 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.

The 58 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1016/0196-8858(91)90029-i
The perception of randomness
resolves10.1016/0167-2681(94)90108-2
Learning a mixed strategy equilibrium in the laboratory
resolves10.1257/000282802762024737
One, Two, (Three), Infinity, … : Newspaper and Lab Beauty-Contest Experiments
resolves10.2307/2938300
Testing the Minimax Hypothesis: A Re-Examination of O'Neill's Game Experiment
resolves10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.25
A Markov model for generation of random binary sequences.
resolves10.1002/bdm.3960070404
Subjective randomization in one‐and two‐person games
resolves10.1080/00036846.2013.866205
Does player specialization predict player actions? Evidence from penalty kicks at FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro Cup
resolves10.1257/00028280260344678
Testing Mixed-Strategy Equilibria When Players Are Heterogeneous: The Case of Penalty Kicks in Soccer
resolves10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01202-9
Sequence learning
resolves10.1177/1527002506289648
Penalty Kicks in Soccer
resolves10.1177/1527002516656729
Further Field Evidence for Minimax Play
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2502193
Minimax on the Gridiron: Serial Correlation and Its Effects on Outcomes in the National Football League
resolves10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.301
Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgment.
resolves10.1037/xge0000245
Who “believes” in the Gambler’s Fallacy and why?
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2850919
Nash at Wimbledon: Evidence from Half a Million Serves
resolves10.1037/a0015241
Perceptions of randomness: Why three heads are better than four.
resolves10.1016/j.geb.2014.05.007
A generalized approach to belief learning in repeated games
resolves10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness
resolves10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1189
Not that bad after all: Generation of random sequences.
resolves10.1016/0010-0277(95)92814-g
Through a narrow window: working memory capacity and the detection of covariation
resolves10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.397
Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations.
resolves10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.278
Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation.
resolves10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.09.036
The efficiency of top agents: An analysis through service strategy in tennis
resolves10.3386/w15347
Professionals Do Not Play Minimax: Evidence from Major League Baseball and the National Football League
resolves10.3982/ecta7405
What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments
resolves10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.392
Distinguishing between random and nonrandom events.
resolves10.1111/1467-9884.00186
On the Advantage of Serving First in a Tennis Set: Four Years at Wimbledon
resolves10.18637/jss.v008.i18
Evaluating Kolmogorov's Distribution
resolves10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.791
Pass or Run: An Empirical Test of the Matching Pennies Game Using Data from the National Football League
resolves10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.62
Can people behave "randomly?": The role of feedback.
resolves10.1037/0033-295x.109.2.330
The production and perception of randomness.
resolves10.1111/1468-0262.00316
An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs
resolves10.1006/game.1995.1030
Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria: An Experimental Study
resolves10.1016/j.geb.2012.10.003
Minimax play by teams
resolves10.1073/pnas.84.7.2106
Nonmetric test of the minimax theory of two-person zerosum games.
resolves10.1037/a0014821
What's next? Judging sequences of binary events.
resolves10.1111/1467-937X.00249
Professionals Play Minimax
resolves10.1111/j.0012-9682.2008.00818.x
Experientia Docet: Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments
resolves10.1257/aer.99.4.1619
Field Centipedes
resolves10.1037/0096-3445.121.3.352
Generation of random series in two-person strictly competitive games.
resolves10.1037/0033-295x.104.3.603
Randomization in individual choice behavior.
resolves10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.483
Implicit learning of first-, second-, and third-order transition probabilities.
resolves10.1016/s0899-8256(05)80020-x
Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term
resolves10.1006/jeth.2001.2915
Mixed Strategy Play and the Minimax Hypothesis
resolves10.1007/s001860400354
Do we detect and exploit mixed strategy play by opponents?
resolves10.1016/j.geb.2012.01.005
Pattern recognition and subjective belief learning in a repeated constant-sum game
resolves10.1016/j.geb.2013.04.005
Beyond fictitious play beliefs: Incorporating pattern recognition and similarity matching
resolves10.1007/s10458-012-9203-z
Strategic adaptation of humans playing computer algorithms in a repeated constant-sum game
resolves10.1016/j.cognition.2017.11.006
The determinants of response time in a repeated constant-sum game: A robust Bayesian hierarchical dual-process model
resolves10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.07.001
Perception of randomness: On the time of streaks
resolves10.1017/s0140525x11000653
Probability theory and perception of randomness: Bridging “ought” and “is”
resolves10.1037/h0031322
Belief in the law of small numbers.
resolves10.1016/j.geb.2015.02.014
Blind stealing: Experience and expertise in a mixed-strategy poker experiment
resolves10.1257/aer.91.5.1521
Minimax Play at Wimbledon
resolves10.1037/xhp0000462
A re-examination of “bias” in human randomness perception.
resolves10.3982/ecta7970
Does Experience Teach? Professionals and Minimax Play in the Lab
resolves10.1037/a0036816
Perception and identification of random events.
resolves10.1112/plms.12030
Power-free values of polynomials on symmetric varieties
The 5 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedDoes Minimax Work?
no DOI — not checkedPredicting How People Play Games : Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique , Mixed Strategy Equilibria
no DOI — not checkedref20
no DOI — not checkedRational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis
no DOI — not checkedref60
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none carried a retraction notice at that time. If Crossref’s record marks the work itself retracted, withdrawn, or removed, the badge says so instead of showing clean. It says nothing about the quality, findings, or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.

checked 2026-10-18 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record

view as graph · paper page

Embed this badge

Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.

<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2830798"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2830798/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[![CiteStamped reference-health badge](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2830798/badge.svg)](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2830798)