IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v249y2016i3p1102-1112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating risk preferences of bettors with different bet sizes

Author

Listed:
  • Feess, Eberhard
  • Müller, Helge
  • Schumacher, Christoph

Abstract

We extend the literature on risk preferences of a representative bettor by including odds-dependent bet sizes in our estimations. Accounting for different bet sizes largely reduces the standard errors of all coefficients. Substituting the coefficients from the model with equal bet sizes into the model with odds-dependent sizes leads to a sharp decline in the likelihood which shows that accounting for different amounts is important. Our estimations strongly reject the hypothesis that the overbetting of outcomes with low probabilities (favorite-longshot bias) can be explained by risk-seeking bettors. Depending on the exact specification within cumulative prospect theory, the data can best be described by an overweighting of small probabilities which is more pronounced in the gain domain. Models allowing for two parameters for probability weighting each in the gain- and in the loss domain are superior.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1102-1112
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715008954
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    2. Russell Sobel & S. Travis Raines, 2003. "An examination of the empirical derivatives of the favourite-longshot bias in racetrack betting," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 371-385.
    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. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    5. D. Law & D. A. Peel, 2007. "Gambling and nonexpected utility: the perils of the power function," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 79-82.
    6. Woodland, Linda M & Woodland, Bill M, 1994. " Market Efficiency and the Favorite-Longshot Bias: The Baseball Betting Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 269-279, March.
    7. William Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2002. "Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 53-84, June.
    8. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Juan Nicolau, 2012. "Battle royal: Zero-price effect vs relative vs referent thinking," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 661-669, September.
    11. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2012. "A Structural Analysis of Disappointment Aversion in a Real Effort Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 469-503, February.
    12. Shin, Hyun Song, 1991. "Optimal Betting Odds against Insider Traders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1179-1185, September.
    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. Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Prices Of State Contingent Claims With Insider Traders, And The Favourite-Longshot Bias," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 34, pages 343-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Helga Fehr-Duda & Manuele Gennaro & Renate Schubert, 2006. "Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 283-313, May.
    16. Bryan Boulier & H. O. Stekler & Sarah Amundson, 2006. "Testing the efficiency of the National Football League betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 279-284.
    17. Alexis Direr, 2013. "Are betting markets efficient? Evidence from European Football Championships," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 343-356, January.
    18. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2009. "Surprised by the Parimutuel Odds?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2129-2134, December.
    19. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    20. Hwang, Joon Ho & Kim, Min-Su, 2015. "Misunderstanding of the binomial distribution, market inefficiency, and learning behavior: Evidence from an exotic sports betting market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(1), pages 333-344.
    21. Martin Weitzman, 2008. "Utility Analysis And Group Behavior An Empirical Study," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 9, pages 47-55 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    22. Lattimore, Pamela K. & Baker, Joanna R. & Witte, Ann D., 1992. "The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 377-400, May.
    23. 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.
    24. Ert, Eyal & Erev, Ido, 2008. "The rejection of attractive gambles, loss aversion, and the lemon avoidance heuristic," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 715-723, November.
    25. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    26. Pamela K. Lattimore & Joanna R. Baker & A. Dryden Witte, 1992. "The Influence Of Probability on Risky Choice: A parametric Examination," NBER Technical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. 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.
    28. Conlisk, John, 1993. "The Utility of Gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 255-275, June.
    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. repec:eee:ejores:v:270:y:2018:i:2:p:556-569 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1102-1112. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.