IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aejmic/v2y2010i1p58-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Noise, Information, and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Predictions

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Ottaviani
  • Peter Norman Sorensen

Abstract

According to the favorite-longshot bias, the expected return on an outcome tends to increase in the fraction of bets laid on that outcome. We derive testable implications for the direction and extent of the bias depending on the ratio of private information to noise present in the market. We link this ratio to observables such as the number of bettors, the number of outcomes, the amount of private information, the level of participation generated by recreational interest in the event, the divisibility of bets, the presence of ex post noise, as well as ex ante asymmetries across outcomes. (JEL D81, D83)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:aejmic:v:2:y:2010:i:1:p:58-85
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/mic.2.1.58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.2.1.58
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alistair Bruce & Johnnie Johnson, 2001. "Efficiency characteristics of a market for state contingent claims," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(13), pages 1751-1754.
    2. 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.
    3. Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Prices Of State Contingent Claims With Insider Traders, And The Favourite-Longshot Bias," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.),Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 34, pages 343-352, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Richard N. Rosett, 1965. "Gambling and Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 595-595.
    5. Thaler, Richard H & Ziemba, William T, 1988. "Parimutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 161-174, Spring.
    6. 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..
    7. Metrick, Andrew, 1996. "March madness? Strategic behavior in NCAA basketball tournament betting pools," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 159-172, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Brown, Lawrence D. & Lin, Yi, 2003. "Racetrack betting and consensus of subjective probabilities," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 175-187, April.
    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. 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.
    12. Busche, Kelly & Hall, Christopher D, 1988. "An Exception to the Risk Preference Anomaly," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 337-346, July.
    13. Richard E. Quandt, 1986. "Betting and Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 201-207.
    14. Terrell, Dek & Farmer, Amy, 1996. "Optimal Betting and Efficiency in Parimutuel Betting Markets with Information Costs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 846-868, July.
    15. Steven D. Levitt, 2004. "Why are gambling markets organised so differently from financial markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 223-246, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Tai, Chung-Ching & Lin, Hung-Wen & Chie, Bin-Tzong & Tung, Chen-Yuan, 2019. "Predicting the failures of prediction markets: A procedure of decision making using classification models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 297-312.
    7. Kajii, Atsushi & Watanabe, Takahiro, 2017. "Favorite–longshot bias in pari-mutuel betting: An evolutionary explanation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 56-69.
    8. 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.
    9. Ulrik W. Nash, 2018. "Fair Odds for Noisy Probabilities," Papers 1811.12516, arXiv.org.
    10. Koessler, Frédéric & Noussair, Charles & Ziegelmeyer, Anthony, 2012. "Information aggregation and belief elicitation in experimental parimutuel betting markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 195-208.
    11. David Court & Benjamin Gillen & Jordi McKenzie & Charles R. Plott, 2018. "Two information aggregation mechanisms for predicting the opening weekend box office revenues of films: Boxoffice Prophecy and Guess of Guesses," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 25-54, January.
    12. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    13. Charles Moul & Joseph Keller, 2014. "Time to Unbridle U.S. Thoroughbred Racetracks? Lessons from Australian Bookies," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(3), pages 211-239, May.
    14. Lambert, Nicolas S. & Langford, John & Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer & Chen, Yiling & Reeves, Daniel M. & Shoham, Yoav & Pennock, David M., 2015. "An axiomatic characterization of wagering mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 389-416.
    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. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2015. "Price Reaction to Information with Heterogeneous Beliefs and Wealth Effects: Underreaction, Momentum, and Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 1-34, January.
    17. Matti Koivuranta & Marko Korhonen, 2019. "Misperception explains favorite-longshot bias: evidence from the Finnish and Swedish harness horse race markets," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 2149-2160, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:aea:aejmic:v:2:y:2010:i:1:p:58-85. See general 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: (Michael P. Albert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.