IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/buecrs/v51y1999i3p237-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating Insider Trading in Betting Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Paton, David
  • Vaughan Williams, Leighton
  • Fraser, Stuart

Abstract

Although trading in securities in conventional financial markets on the basis of inside information is restricted by law, the rules against such trading in better markets are rather more ambiguous. It is argued in this paper that, since insider trading in betting markets imposes a cost on the great majority of bettors, tighter strictures against such trading would benefit all but the insiders. This case is supported by the use of empirical evidence which shows that betting markets which are characterized by tighter controls against insider activity are also characterized by a significantly lower incidence of such activity. Copyright 1999 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the Board of Trustees of the Bulletin of Economic Research

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:buecrs:v:51:y:1999:i:3:p:237-41
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ron Bird & Michael Mccrae, 2008. "Tests Of The Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Using Bookmaker Odds," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 59, pages 593-603, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Shin, Hyun Song, 1993. "Measuring the Incidence of Insider Trading in a Market for State-Contingent Claims," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1141-1153, September.
    3. John Fingleton & Patrick Waldron, 1996. "Optimal Determination of Bookmakers' Betting Odds: Theory and Tests," Economics Technical Papers 969, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    4. Jullien, Bruno & Salanie, Bernard, 1994. "Measuring the Incidence of Insider Trading: A Comment on Shin," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(427), pages 1418-1419, November.
    5. Williams, Leighton Vaughan & Paton, David, 1997. "Why Is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(440), pages 150-158, January.
    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. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Symposium Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.
    2. David Forrest, 2003. "Sport and Gambling," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(4), pages 598-611, Winter.
    3. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.
    4. Les Coleman, 2007. "Just How Serious is Insider Trading? An Evaluation using Thoroughbred Wagering Markets," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 31-55, February.
    5. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Symposium Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.

    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. Smith, Michael A. & Paton, David & Williams, Leighton Vaughan, 2009. "Do bookmakers possess superior skills to bettors in predicting outcomes?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 539-549, August.
    2. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.
    3. Williams, Leighton Vaughan & Paton, David, 1997. "Why Is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(440), pages 150-158, January.
    4. Les Coleman, 2007. "Just How Serious is Insider Trading? An Evaluation using Thoroughbred Wagering Markets," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 31-55, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. David Paton & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2001. "Monopoly Rents and Price Fixing in Betting Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(3), pages 265-278, November.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jaume García & Levi Pérez & Plácido Rodríguez, 2017. "Forecasting football match results: are the many smarter than the few?," Chapters, in: Plácido Rodríguez & Brad R. Humphreys & Robert Simmons (ed.), The Economics of Sports Betting, chapter 5, pages 71-91, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Leighton Vaughan Williams & David Paton, 1997. "Does information efficiency require a perception of information inefficiency?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(10), pages 615-617.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Alasdair Brown & Fuyu Yang, 2017. "The Role of Speculative Trade in Market Efficiency: Evidence from a Betting Exchange," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(2), pages 583-603.
    16. Vincenzo Candila & Antonio Scognamillo, 2019. "On the Longshot Bias in Tennis Betting Markets: The Casco Normalization," Working Papers 3_236, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
    17. Alistair C. Bruce & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & John D. Peirson & Jiejun Yu, 2009. "An Examination of the Determinants of Biased Behaviour in a Market for State Contingent Claims," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 282-303, April.
    18. Berkowitz, Jason P. & Depken II, Craig A. & Gandar, John M., 2018. "Market evidence against widespread point shaving in college basketball," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 283-292.
    19. Alistair Bruce & David Marginson, 2014. "Power, Not Fear: A Collusion-Based Account of Betting Market Inefficiency," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 77-97, February.
    20. Leighton Vaughan Williams & David Paton, 1998. "Why are some favourite-longshot biases positive and others negative?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(11), pages 1505-1510.

    More about this item

    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:bla:buecrs:v:51:y:1999:i:3:p:237-41. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0307-3378 .

    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.