An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias
AbstractEmpirical studies of horse race betting in the US, the UK, Australia, and Germany have empirically established the so called favorite-longshot bias. It was found that bets on longshots on average lose much more than bets on favorites. The theoretical literature on wagering markets has offered a variety of explanations for that bias. One of the most prominent is the assumption of a homogeneous bettor population with a preference for risk. However, the risk-love explanation has also been severely challenged. We add to this challenge by proposing a different explanation of the favorite-longshot bias. We show that if populations of bettors have only noisy estimates of horses' true winning probabilities, a favorite-longshot bias will be the market equilibrium outcome even with risk neutral bettors and even if the median estimate is correct. We provide evidence on four different types of bets broadly consistent with the noisy estimates assumption but not with the risk-love explanation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Buckingham Press in its journal Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
Volume (Year): 2 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.ubpl.co.uk/
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Recreation; Tourism
- D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.