IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sej/ancoec/v764y2010p976-992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Symposium Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • John Peirson

    () (Department of Economics, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK.)

  • Michael A. Smith

    () (Leeds Business School, Bronte Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds LS1 3HE, UK.)

Abstract

We present a new model analyzing the effect of uncertainty faced by bookmakers. It is shown that bettors with inside information or expert analysis decrease the odds set by profitmaximizing bookmakers. Data on previously unraced 2-year-old horses and those that have raced previously are used to examine the impact of the greater possibility of insider information on odds bias in relation to unraced horses. The probability of an unraced 2-year-old winning is found to be on average 16% higher than that of a raced 2-year-old horse with the same odds. This effect decreases as the probability of winning increases. The latter effect indicates a possible contribution to the favorite-longshot bias, and the former shows the importance of insider information in the setting of market odds. The regulation of the use of insider information is discussed in light of the similar impact of insider information and expert analysis on bookmaker odds.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:76:4:y:2010:p:976-992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.4.976
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Schnytzer, Adi & Shilony, Yuval, 1995. "Inside Information in a Betting Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(431), pages 963-971, July.
    3. Raymond D. Sauer, 1998. "The Economics of Wagering Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2021-2064, December.
    4. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    5. Law, David & Peel, David A, 2002. "Insider Trading, Herding Behaviour and Market Plungers in the British Horse-Race Betting Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 69(274), pages 327-338, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    8. Hurley, William & McDonough, Lawrence, 1995. "A Note on the Hayek Hypothesis and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Betting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 949-955, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Ron Bird & Michael McCrae, 1987. "Tests of the Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Using Bookmaker Odds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(12), pages 1552-1562, December.
    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. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    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:sej:ancoec:v:76:4:y:2010:p:976-992. 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: (Laura Razzolini). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/seaaaea.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.