IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v28y2021i12p1006-1009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Next game reaction to mispriced betting lines in college football

Author

Listed:
  • Randall W. Bennett

Abstract

Although studies show the point spread is a very good predictor of actual score differences in college football, there are a number of games each season where the betting line is not close to the actual spread. This article investigates the efficiency of the college football betting market for the game following one with a large difference between betting and actual point spreads for the 2006–2018 seasons. For the entire sample, the simple rule of betting for teams that greatly beat the spread and against teams that did very poorly against the spread in the previous game wins significantly more than half the time. When the results are analysed separately for the better known BCS/Power 5 schools and the lesser known non-BCS/Power 5 schools, efficiency cannot be rejected for games involving the BCS/Power 5 teams. For games involving two non-BCS/Power 5 teams, however, following the betting rule wins against the spread 54.23% of the time, which is significantly greater than 50%. This is consistent with an information gap scenario, where new information is more efficiently incorporated for games involving better-known participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Randall W. Bennett, 2021. "Next game reaction to mispriced betting lines in college football," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(12), pages 1006-1009, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:12:p:1006-1009
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2020.1795063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2020.1795063
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2020.1795063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    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:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:12:p:1006-1009. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.