IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/47905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Causes the Favorite-Longshot Bias? Further Evidence from Tennis

Author

Listed:
  • Lahvicka, Jiri

Abstract

In sports betting markets, bets on favorites tend to have a higher expected value than bets on longshots. This article uses a data set of almost 45,000 professional single tennis matches to show that the favorite-longshot bias is much stronger in matches between lower-ranked players, in later-round matches, and in high-profile tournaments. These results cannot be solely explained by bettors being locally risk-loving or overestimating chances of longshots, but are consistent with bookmakers protecting themselves against both better informed insiders and the general public exploiting new information.

Suggested Citation

  • Lahvicka, Jiri, 2013. "What Causes the Favorite-Longshot Bias? Further Evidence from Tennis," MPRA Paper 47905, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:47905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47905/1/MPRA_paper_47905.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Forrest & Ian Mchale, 2007. "Anyone for Tennis (Betting)?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 751-768.
    2. Raymond D. Sauer, 1998. "The Economics of Wagering Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2021-2064, December.
    3. Vasiliki Makropoulou & Raphael N. Markellos, 2011. "Optimal Price Setting In Fixed‐Odds Betting Markets Under Information Uncertainty," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 58(4), pages 519-536, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2003. "The Favourite‐Longshot Bias, Bookmaker Margins and Insider Trading in a Variety of Betting Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 263-273, July.
    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. He, Xue-Zhong & Treich, Nicolas, 2017. "Prediction market prices under risk aversion and heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 105-114.
    2. Isabel Abinzano & Luis Muga & Rafael Santamaria, 2017. "Behavioral Biases Never Walk Alone," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 99-125, February.
    3. Franke, Maximilian, 2020. "Do market participants misprice lottery-type assets? Evidence from the European soccer betting market," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-18.

    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. 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.
    2. Jason P. Berkowitz & Craig A. Depken II & John M. Gandar, 2018. "The Conversion of Money Lines Into Win Probabilities," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(7), pages 990-1015, October.
    3. David Winkelmann & Marius Ötting & Christian Deutscher & Tomasz Makarewicz, 2024. "Are Betting Markets Inefficient? Evidence From Simulations and Real Data," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 25(1), pages 54-97, January.
    4. 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.
    5. McAlvanah, Patrick & Moul, Charles C., 2013. "The house doesn’t always win: Evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 87-99.
    6. Berkowitz, Jason P. & Depken, Craig A. & Gandar, John M., 2017. "A favorite-longshot bias in fixed-odds betting markets: Evidence from college basketball and college football," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 233-239.
    7. Nikolaos Vlastakis & George Dotsis & Raphael N. Markellos, 2009. "How efficient is the European football betting market? Evidence from arbitrage and trading strategies," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 426-444.
    8. Buhagiar, Ranier & Cortis, Dominic & Newall, Philip W.S., 2018. "Why do some soccer bettors lose more money than others?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 85-93.
    9. 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.
    10. Isabel Abinzano & Luis Muga & Rafael Santamaria, 2019. "Hidden Power of Trading Activity: The FLB in Tennis Betting Exchanges," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(2), pages 261-285, February.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Kai Fischer & Justus Haucap, 2022. "Home advantage in professional soccer and betting market efficiency: The role of spectator crowds," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 294-316, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Stekler, H.O. & Sendor, David & Verlander, Richard, 2010. "Issues in sports forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 606-621, July.
      • Herman O. Stekler & David Sendor & Richard Verlander, 2009. "Issues in Sports Forecasting," Working Papers 2009-002, The George Washington University, Department of Economics, H. O. Stekler Research Program on Forecasting.
    16. Babatunde Buraimo & David Peel & Rob Simmons, 2013. "Systematic Positive Expected Returns in the UK Fixed Odds Betting Market: An Analysis of the Fink Tank Predictions," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Whelan, Karl & Hegarty, Tadgh, 2023. "Disagreement and Market Structure in Betting Markets: Theory and Evidence from European Soccer," CEPR Discussion Papers 18144, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. 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.
    19. He, Xue-Zhong & Treich, Nicolas, 2017. "Prediction market prices under risk aversion and heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 105-114.
    20. Bruce, A.C. & Johnson, J.E.V. & Peirson, J., 2012. "Recreational versus professional bettors: Performance differences and efficiency implications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 172-174.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    favorite-longshot bias; tennis; sports betting; market efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    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:pra:mprapa:47905. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.