Further application of the generalized matching law to multialternative sports contexts

Falligant’s team watched Major League Baseball pitchers again. They asked: does the matching law still explain pitch choice when we add more game details?

They tracked every pitch and counted how often each type paid off. Then they tested the math with new facts like inning score and pitcher skill.

The old matching equation still fit. Pitchers threw the pitch that had worked most often in that spot.

Even with bigger samples and extra context, the law held steady. Choice still followed past success.

Cox et al. (2017) first showed the matching law in MLB with five pitchers. Falligant adds more pitchers and more game details. The pattern repeats.

Hawley et al. (2004) looked at women’s basketball and also used matching ideas. Both studies find the same rule works across sports and sexes.

Haemmerlie (1983) defended the matching law from early critics. Falligant’s new data give the law fresh real-world support four decades later.

You can trust the matching law outside the lab. When you graph a client’s choice across three snacks, the same math fits. Try adding extra context—time of day, noise level—and see if the line still matches. If it does, you know reinforcement history is driving the choice, not the new variable.