IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-07d00007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Betting on odds on Favorites as an Optimal Choice in Cumulative Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • David Peel

    (University of Lancaster UK)

  • David Law

    (University of Bangor)

Abstract

It is well known that the parametric version of Cumulative Prospect theory (CPT) proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and Tversky and Kahneman (1992) (KT) can explain gambling at actuarially unfair odds on long shots due to the over weighting of small probabilities. However betting on odds favorites appears problematic. We demonstrate using a parametric model of Cumulative Prospect Theory that nests that of Kahneman and Tversky that if agents are risk averse enough over gains and risk-seeking enough over losses then they will gamble on odds on chances at actuarially unfair odds even when there is no probability distortion. This previously unappreciated fact is interesting since many experimental results suggest that some respondents are very risk averse over gains.

Suggested Citation

  • David Peel & David Law, 2007. "Betting on odds on Favorites as an Optimal Choice in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(26), pages 1-10.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-07d00007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2007/Volume4/EB-07D00007A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    2. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Atanu Saha, 1993. "Expo-Power Utility: A ‘Flexible’ Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(4), pages 905-913.
    6. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2005. "Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 677-678, April.
    7. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
    8. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Alan Peel & David Law, 2017. "Loss Aversion And Ruinous Optimal Wagers In Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 352-360.
    2. Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2008. "Bounded cumulative prospect theory: some implications for gambling outcomes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 5-15.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    2. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2009. "The expo-power value function as a candidate for the work-horse specification in parametric versions of cumulative prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 326-329, December.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:26:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    5. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    7. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    8. Marie Pfiffelmann, 2011. "Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 325-341, September.
    9. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2012. "On the potential for observational equivalence in experiments on risky choice when a power value function is assumed," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 8-10.
    10. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    11. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    12. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Holden , Stein, 2014. "Risky Choices of Poor People: Comparing Risk Preference Elicitation Approaches in Field Experiments," CLTS Working Papers 10/14, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    14. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    15. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    17. Guo, Jing & He, Xue Dong, 2017. "Equilibrium asset pricing with Epstein-Zin and loss-averse investors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 86-108.
    18. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    19. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    20. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    21. Albert Burgos, 2004. "Guessing and gambling," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General
    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-07d00007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.