IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurjfi/v10y2004i5p379-390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The utility of gambling and the favourite-longshot bias

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Cain
  • David Peel

Abstract

The traditional explanation for the usual favourite-longshot bias in gambling is that gamblers are risk-lovers. Conditions are derived under which the bias occurs and it is shown to be consistent with a utility function that has elasticity greater than one in a certain range. With a utility function that displays risk-aversion as well as risk-loving behaviour over its domain, it is demonstrated that the expected return-win probability frontier is not monotonic as has been hitherto tacitly assumed. This provides a consistent explanation for both the usual favourite-longshot bias and also for the few examples where a reverse bias has been observed. Pooled data supports the thesis that the frontier is not completely monotonic but does indeed have a turning point.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Cain & David Peel, 2004. "The utility of gambling and the favourite-longshot bias," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 379-390.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurjfi:v:10:y:2004:i:5:p:379-390
    DOI: 10.1080/1351847042000199051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1351847042000199051
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1351847042000199051?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard E. Quandt, 1986. "Betting and Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(1), pages 201-207.
    2. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2001. "Market Efficiency and Profitable Wagering in the National Hockey League: Can Bettors Score on Longshots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(4), pages 983-995, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2001. "Market Efficiency and Profitable Wagering in the National Hockey League: Can Bettors Score on Longshots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(4), pages 983-995, April.
    6. Fred D. Arditti, 1967. "Risk And The Required Return On Equity," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 22(1), pages 19-36, March.
    7. Kanto, Antti J. & Rosenqvist, Gunnar & Suvas, Arto, 1992. "On utility function estimation of racetrack bettors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 491-498, September.
    8. Scott, Robert C & Horvath, Philip A, 1980. "On the Direction of Preference for Moments of Higher Order Than the Variance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 35(4), pages 915-919, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Asch, Peter & Quandt, Richard E, 1987. "Efficiency and Profitability in Exotic Bets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 54(215), pages 289-298, August.
    11. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. David Forrest & Ian Mchale, 2007. "Anyone for Tennis (Betting)?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 751-768.
    4. Clark, Gordon L. & Fiaschetti, Maurizio & Tufano, Peter & Viehs, Michael, 2018. "Playing with your future: Who gambles in defined-contribution pension plans?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 213-225.
    5. Grant, Andrew & Johnstone, David & Kwon, Oh Kang, 2019. "The cost of capital in a prediction market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 313-320.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. David Forrest & Ian Mchale, 2007. "Anyone for Tennis (Betting)?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 751-768.
    4. 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.
    5. Marshall Gramm & C. Nicholas McKinney & Douglas H. Owens & Matt E. Ryan, 2007. "What Do Bettors Want? Determinants of Pari‐Mutuel Betting Preference," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 465-491, July.
    6. Bill Woodland & Linda Woodland, 1999. "Expected utility, skewness, and the baseball betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 337-345.
    7. 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.
    8. Ziemba, William, 2020. "Parimutuel betting markets: racetracks and lotteries revisited," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118873, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Jullien, Bruno & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Empirical Evidence on the Preferences of Racetrack Bettors," IDEI Working Papers 178, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    10. 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.
    11. Jaiho Chung & Joon Ho Hwang, 2010. "An Empirical Examination of the Parimutuel Sports Lottery Market versus the Bookmaker Market," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 884-905, April.
    12. Juliane Proelss & Denis Schweizer, 2014. "Polynomial goal programming and the implicit higher moment preferences of US institutional investors in hedge funds," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 28(1), pages 1-28, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    15. Stefan Winter & Martin Kukuk, 2008. "Do horses like vodka and sponging? - On market manipulation and the favourite-longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 75-87.
    16. 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.
    17. Raphael Flepp & Stephan Nüesch & Egon Franck, 2016. "Does Bettor Sentiment Affect Bookmaker Pricing?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(1), pages 3-11, January.
    18. M. Cain & D. Peel & D. Law, 2002. "Skewness as an explanation of gambling by locally risk averse agents," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(15), pages 1025-1028.
    19. Adi Schnytzer & Guy Weinberg, 2008. "Testing for Home Team and Favorite Biases in the Australian Rules Football Fixed-Odds and Point Spread Betting Markets," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 9(2), pages 173-190, April.
    20. 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.

    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:eurjfi:v:10:y:2004:i:5:p:379-390. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJF20 .

    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.