IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2011_23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Numbers to Choose for My Lottery Ticket? Behavior Anomalies in the Chinese Online Lottery Market

Author

Listed:
  • Jieyao Ding

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

Abstract

The Chinese Online Lottery provides field evidence of three anomalies. The first anomaly, which has previously not been documented when there is a financial incentive to overcome, is the guidance effect. Since the target game in this project is a pari-mutuel game, which means people will share the jackpot with other winners, the best strategy should be to choose the least popular numbers among others – information that people could obtain on the webpage. However, to my surprise, instead of doing so, people would choose the most popular numbers among others. The second anomaly tested is the gambler’s fallacy. Although it is proved that the gambler’s fallacy does exist, the influence lasts only three days, which is much shorter than prior research. Furthermore, the dataset’s availability makes it possible to show how the two fallacies unfold over time within a round. This was unlikely before the phenomenon of online betting. The result demonstrates that later entrants are subject to more fallacies than earlier ones. Finally, the paper adds to the evidence showing the additional, culturally contingent pull of special numbers. In China, bettors prefer to choose the lucky number 8, even it won the game in prior rounds, but they are reluctant to choose the unlucky number 14 even it has not been picked for a long while.

Suggested Citation

  • Jieyao Ding, 2011. "What Numbers to Choose for My Lottery Ticket? Behavior Anomalies in the Chinese Online Lottery Market," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_23, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2011_23online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    2. Raymond D. Sauer, 1998. "The Economics of Wagering Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2021-2064, December.
    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. Terrell, Dek & Farmer, Amy, 1996. "Optimal Betting and Efficiency in Parimutuel Betting Markets with Information Costs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 846-868, July.
    5. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    6. Terrell, Dek, 1998. "Biases in Assessments of Probabilities: New Evidence from Greyhound Races," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 151-166, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Thaler, Richard H & Ziemba, William T, 1988. "Parimutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 161-174, Spring.
    9. Jonathan Guryan & Melissa S. Kearney, 2008. "Gambling at Lucky Stores: Empirical Evidence from State Lottery Sales," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 458-473, March.
    10. Kocher, Martin G. & Krawczyk, Michal & van Winden, Frans, 2014. "‘Let me dream on!’ Anticipatory emotions and preference for timing in lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-40.
    11. 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.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:243-259 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Brian A. Polin & Eyal Ben Isaac & Itzhak Aharon, 2021. "Patterns in manually selected numbers in the Israeli lottery," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 1039-1059, July.
    3. Tong V. Wang & Rogier J. D. Potter van Loon & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Number preferences in lotteries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 243-259, May.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:1039-1059 is not listed 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. 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. June Buchanan & Yun Shen, 2021. "Gambling and marketing: a systematic literature review using HistCite," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(2), pages 2837-2851, June.
    3. Niko Suhonen, 2011. "Market Efficiency in Finnish Harness Horse Racing," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 55-63, Spring.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Buhagiar, Ranier & Cortis, Dominic & Newall, Philip W.S., 2018. "Why do some soccer bettors lose more money than others?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 85-93.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. Marshall Gramm & Douglas H. Owens, 2006. "Efficiency in Pari‐Mutuel Betting Markets across Wagering Pools in the Simulcast Era," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 926-937, April.
    13. 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).
    14. Niko Suhonen & Jani Saastamoinen & Mika Linden, 2018. "A dual theory approach to estimating risk preferences in the parimutuel betting market," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 1335-1351, May.
    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. 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.
    17. Niko Suhonen & Jani Saastamoinen, 2018. "How Do Prior Gains and Losses Affect Subsequent Risk Taking? New Evidence from Individual-Level Horse Race Bets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2797-2808, June.
    18. Rebeggiani, Luca & Gross, Johannes, 2018. "Chance or Ability? The Efficiency of the Football Betting Market Revisited," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181563, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sorensen, 2010. "Noise, Information, and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Predictions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 58-85, February.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lottery Game; Gambler’s Fallacy; Guidance Effect; Number Culture;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:mpg:wpaper:2011_23. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.html .

    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.