IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcd/tcduet/969.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Determination of Bookmakers' Betting Odds: Theory and Tests

Author

Listed:
  • John Fingleton
  • Patrick Waldron

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical model of how bookmakers' odds are determined, given varying levels of inside information on the part of punters. Bookmakers' attitudes towards risk and the degree of competition between them will influence bookmaker behaviour. Using a data set of 1,696 races in Ireland in 1993, we find that bookmakers are extremely risk-averse, and estimate that operating costs and monopoly rents combined account for up to 4 per cent of turnover and that between 3.1 and 3.7 per cent of betting is by punters with inside information.

Suggested Citation

  • John Fingleton & Patrick Waldron, 1996. "Optimal Determination of Bookmakers' Betting Odds: Theory and Tests," Economics Technical Papers 969, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:tcd:tcduet:969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Paton, David & Vaughan Williams, Leighton & Fraser, Stuart, 1999. "Regulating Insider Trading in Betting Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 237-241, July.
    2. David Peel & David Law & Michael Cain, 2000. "Product bundling and a rule of thumb versus the Harville formulae: can each way bets with UK bookmakers generate abnormal returns," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1737-1744.
    3. Michael A. Smith & David Paton & Leighton Vaughan-Williams, 2004. "Costs, biases and betting markets: new evidence," Working Papers 2004/5, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham Business School, Economics Division.
    4. William Hurley & Lawrence McDonough, 2007. "Imperfect Market-Maker Competition, Heterogeneous Expectations, and The Favourite-Longshot Bias in Wagering Markets," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 3-12, February.
    5. M. Cain & D. Law & D. A. Peel, 2003. "Some analysis of the properties of the Harville place formulae when allowance is made for the favourite-long shot bias employing Shin Win probabilities," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 53-57.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing

    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:tcd:tcduet:969. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Colette Angelov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detcdie.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.