IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cer/papers/wp545.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Constant Bet Size? Don't Bet on It! Testing Expected Utility Theory on Betfair Data

Author

Listed:
  • Frantisek Kopriva

Abstract

I analyze the risk preferences of bettors using data from the world's largest betting exchange, Betfair. The assumption of a constant bet size, commonly used in the current literature, leads to an unrealistic model of bettors' decision making as a choice between a high return - low variance and low return - high variance bet, automatically implying risk-loving preferences of bettors. However, the data show that bettors bet different amounts on different odds. Thus, simply by introducing the computed average bet size at given odds I transform the bettor's decision problem into a standard choice between low return - low variance and high return - high variance bets, and I am able to correctly estimate the risk attitudes of bettors. Results indicate that bettors on Betfair are either risk neutral (tennis and soccer markets) or slightly risk loving (horse racing market). I further use the information on the average bet size to test the validity of Expected utility theory (EUT). The results suggest that, when facing a number of outcomes with different winning probabilities, bettors tend to overweight small and underweight large differences in probabilities, which is in direct contradiction to the linear probability weighting function implied by EUT.

Suggested Citation

  • Frantisek Kopriva, 2015. "Constant Bet Size? Don't Bet on It! Testing Expected Utility Theory on Betfair Data," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp545, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    • Handle: RePEc:cer:papers:wp545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp545.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    2. David Forrest & Ian Mchale, 2007. "Anyone for Tennis (Betting)?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 751-768.
    3. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    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. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Ricard Gil & Steven D. Levitt, 2007. "Testing the Efficiency of Markets in the 2002 World Cup," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(3), pages 255-270, December.
    7. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    8. Kanto, Antti J. & Rosenqvist, Gunnar & Suvas, Arto, 1992. "On utility function estimation of racetrack bettors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 491-498, September.
    9. Martin Weitzman, 2008. "Utility Analysis And Group Behavior An Empirical Study," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 9, pages 47-55, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Ali, Mukhtar M, 1977. "Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 803-815, August.
    11. Joseph Golec & Maurry Tamarkin, 1998. "Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 205-225, February.
    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. Müller, Helge & Schumacher, Christoph & Feess, Eberhard, 2011. "Gender behavior in betting markets," VfS Annual Conference 2011 (Frankfurt, Main): The Order of the World Economy - Lessons from the Crisis 48697, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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. Philip W. S. Newall & Dominic Cortis, 2021. "Are Sports Bettors Biased toward Longshots, Favorites, or Both? A Literature Review," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    3. Jinook Jeong & Jee Young Kim & Yoon Jae Ro, 2019. "On the efficiency of racetrack betting market: a new test for the favourite-longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(54), pages 5817-5828, November.
    4. Gigi Foster & Paul Frijters & Markus Schaffner & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Expectation Formation in an Evolving Game of Uncertainty: Theory and New Experimental Evidence," CREMA Working Paper Series 2013-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    5. Niko Suhonen & Jani Saastamoinen & Mika Linden, 2018. "A dual theory approach to estimating risk preferences in the parimutuel betting market," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 1335-1351, May.
    6. Stefan Winter & Martin Kukuk, 2008. "Do horses like vodka and sponging? - On market manipulation and the favourite-longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 75-87.
    7. Restocchi, Valerio & McGroarty, Frank & Gerding, Enrico & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2018. "It takes all sorts: A heterogeneous agent explanation for prediction market mispricing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 556-569.
    8. Niko Suhonen & Jani Saastamoinen, 2018. "How Do Prior Gains and Losses Affect Subsequent Risk Taking? New Evidence from Individual-Level Horse Race Bets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2797-2808, June.
    9. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    10. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    11. Karl Whelan, 2024. "Risk aversion and favourite–longshot bias in a competitive fixed‐odds betting market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(361), pages 188-209, January.
    12. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    13. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sorensen, 2010. "Noise, Information, and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Predictions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 58-85, February.
    14. Goto, Shingo & Yamada, Toru, 2023. "What drives biased odds in sports betting markets: Bettors’ irrationality and the role of bookmakers," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 252-270.
    15. Leighton Vaughan Williams & Ming‐Chien Sung & Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & John Peirson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2018. "Towards an Understanding of the Origins of the Favourite–Longshot Bias: Evidence from Online Poker Markets, a Real‐money Natural Laboratory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 360-382, April.
    16. Niko Suhonen, 2011. "Market Efficiency in Finnish Harness Horse Racing," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 55-63, Spring.
    17. Feess, Eberhard & Müller, Helge & Schumacher, Christoph, 2016. "Estimating risk preferences of bettors with different bet sizes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1102-1112.
    18. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    19. Jullien, Bruno & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Empirical Evidence on the Preferences of Racetrack Bettors," IDEI Working Papers 178, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    20. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision making under risk; expected utility theory; betting exchanges;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cer:papers:wp545. 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: Lucie Vasiljevova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiacacz.html .

    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.