IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v98y1990i4p874-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Examination of Market Efficiency in British Racetrack Betting

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel, Paul E
  • Marsden, James R

Abstract

The nature of the British racetrack betting market provides a distinctly different opportunity for testing market efficiency. On the basis of data from a single racing season, we compare the returns to two similar forms of bettings: (1) starting price bets placed with bookmakers and (2) pari-mutuel tote bets. Our analysis indicates that tote returns are consistently higher than starting price returns, even though both betting forms are of similar risk and the payoffs are widely reported. The persistently higher tote returns suggest that the British racetrack betting market does not satisfy the conditions of semistrong efficiency. Our results also provide indirect support that the market fails to meet the conditions for strong efficiency. Copyright 1990 by University of Chicago Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel, Paul E & Marsden, James R, 1990. "An Examination of Market Efficiency in British Racetrack Betting," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 874-885, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:98:y:1990:i:4:p:874-85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261710
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers. See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE for details.

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Sung & J. E. V. Johnson, 2010. "Revealing Weak-Form Inefficiency in a Market for State Contingent Claims: The Importance of Market Ecology, Modelling Procedures and Investment Strategies," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 128-147, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Glenn Boyle, 2008. "Do Financial Incentives Affect The Quality of Expert Performance? Evidence from the Racetrack," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 43-59, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Jakobsson, Robin & Karlsson, Niklas, 2007. "Testing Market Efficiency in a Fixed Odds Betting Market," Working Papers 2007:12, Örebro University, School of Business.
    6. Ursula Hauser-Rethaller & Ulrich König, 2002. "Parimutuel Lotteries: Gamblers' Behavior and the Demand for Tickets," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(2), pages 223-245, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    9. Johnson, Johnnie E. V. & Bruce, Alistair C., 2001. "Calibration of Subjective Probability Judgments in a Naturalistic Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 265-290, July.
    10. Bruce, Alistair C. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2005. "Market ecology and decision behaviour in state-contingent claims markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 199-217, February.
    11. Ioannidis, C. & Peel, D.A., 2005. "Testing for market efficiency in gambling markets when the errors are non-normal and heteroskedastic an application of the wild bootstrap," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 221-226, May.
    12. Johnson, J.E.V. & Peel, D. & Peirson, J., 2010. "Systematic and varying biases in parallel state contingent gambling markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 82-84, November.

    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:ucp:jpolec:v:98:y:1990:i:4:p:874-85. 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: (Journals Division). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/ .

    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 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.

    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.