IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.14645.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Final Market Prices Sufficient for Information Aggregation? Evidence from Last-Minute Dynamics in Parimutuel Betting

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroaki Hanyu
  • Shunsuke Ishii
  • Suguru Otani
  • Kazuhiro Teramoto

Abstract

Most betting market models employ static frameworks that condition decisions on final odds. Using a unique dataset of interim odds from Japanese horse racing, this study examines the validity of such static analyses by asking whether there is a systematic relationship between expected returns and the trajectory of odds. We find that returns are negatively related to last-minute changes in odds, and that these late movements attenuate the favorite-longshot bias by weakening the correlation between final odds and returns. These patterns suggest that informed bettors place wagers at the final stage based on private signals, leaving surprises in final odds.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroaki Hanyu & Shunsuke Ishii & Suguru Otani & Kazuhiro Teramoto, 2025. "Are Final Market Prices Sufficient for Information Aggregation? Evidence from Last-Minute Dynamics in Parimutuel Betting," Papers 2509.14645, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.14645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.14645
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Kajii, Atsushi & Watanabe, Takahiro, 2017. "Favorite–longshot bias in pari-mutuel betting: An evolutionary explanation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 56-69.
    3. 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.
    4. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortaçsu, 2004. "Economic Insights from Internet Auctions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 457-486, June.
    5. Michael A. Smith & David Paton & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2006. "Market Efficiency in Person‐to‐Person Betting," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 673-689, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Pierre‐André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié & François Salanié & Amit Gandhi, 2019. "From Aggregate Betting Data to Individual Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 1-36, January.
    8. Charles R. Plott & Jorgen Wit & Winston C. Yang, 2003. "Parimutuel betting markets as information aggregation devices: experimental results," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(2), pages 311-351, September.
    9. Amit Gandhi & Ricardo Serrano-Padial, 2015. "Does Belief Heterogeneity Explain Asset Prices: The Case of the Longshot Bias," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 156-186.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Restocchi, Valerio & McGroarty, Frank & Gerding, Enrico & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2018. "It takes all sorts: A heterogeneous agent explanation for prediction market mispricing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 556-569.
    3. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.
    4. Angelini, Giovanni & De Angelis, Luca & Singleton, Carl, 2022. "Informational efficiency and behaviour within in-play prediction markets," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 282-299.
    5. Hegarty, Tadgh & Whelan, Karl, 2023. "Disagreement and Market Structure in Betting Markets: Theory and Evidence from European Soccer," CEPR Discussion Papers 18144, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Whelan, Karl, 2025. "Agreeing to Disagree: The Economics of Betting Exchanges," MPRA Paper 126351, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Dagaev, Dmitry & Stoyan, Egor, 2020. "Parimutuel betting on the eSports duels: Evidence of the reverse favourite-longshot bias," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Leighton Vaughan Williams & Ming‐Chien Sung & Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & John Peirson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2018. "Towards an Understanding of the Origins of the Favourite–Longshot Bias: Evidence from Online Poker Markets, a Real‐money Natural Laboratory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 360-382, April.
    9. Zhang, Chi & Thijssen, Jacco, 2022. "On sticky bookmaking as a learning device in horse-racing betting markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. Yu, Dian & Gao, Jianjun & Wang, Tongyao, 2022. "Betting market equilibrium with heterogeneous beliefs: A prospect theory-based model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 137-151.
    11. Ottaviani, Marco & Sørensen, Peter Norman, 2003. "Late Informed Betting and the Favourite-Longshot Bias," CEPR Discussion Papers 4092, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Lambert, Nicolas S. & Langford, John & Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer & Chen, Yiling & Reeves, Daniel M. & Shoham, Yoav & Pennock, David M., 2015. "An axiomatic characterization of wagering mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 389-416.
    13. Isabel Abinzano & Luis Muga & Rafael Santamaria, 2019. "Hidden Power of Trading Activity: The FLB in Tennis Betting Exchanges," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(2), pages 261-285, February.
    14. Kajii, Atsushi & Watanabe, Takahiro, 2017. "Favorite–longshot bias in pari-mutuel betting: An evolutionary explanation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 56-69.
    15. 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.
    16. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2011. "Sentimental Preferences and the Organizational Regime of Betting Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 502-518, October.
    17. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    18. Koessler, Frédéric & Noussair, Charles & Ziegelmeyer, Anthony, 2008. "Parimutuel betting under asymmetric information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(7-8), pages 733-744, July.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2509.14645. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.