IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-21-00684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Favourite–longshot biases in a pari-mutuel system without cross arbitrage

Author

Listed:
  • Kazuki Okamoto

    (JIM Technology Corporation)

  • Mototsugu Fukushige

    (Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University)

Abstract

The Japan Racing Association supplies bracket quinellas and quinellas. Repdigit-type bracket quinellas and their corresponding quinellas lead to the same winning probabilities, with both types of quinellas operating separately under a pari-mutuel system. However, the actual odds for these quinellas are different. Empirical testing suggests that there is no possibility for arbitrage between these tickets and that the repdigit-type bracket quinella exhibits a stronger favorite–longshot bias than the quinella. This implies that the favorite–longshot bias is not arbitraged across the separately operated pari-mutuel system and is always stronger for bracket-type quinellas than quinellas.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazuki Okamoto & Mototsugu Fukushige, 2022. "Favourite–longshot biases in a pari-mutuel system without cross arbitrage," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(1), pages 203-207.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-21-00684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2022/Volume42/EB-22-V42-I1-P17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. David Edelman & Nigel O'Brian, 2004. "Tote arbitrage and lock opportunities in racetrack betting," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 370-378.
    3. 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.
    4. W. David Walls & Kelly Busche, 2003. "Broken odds and the favourite-longshot bias in parimutuel betting: a direct test," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 311-314, April.
    5. Donald B. Hausch & William T. Ziemba, 1990. "Locks at the Racetrack," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 41-48, June.
    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. Masahiro Ashiya, 2015. "Lock! Risk-Free Arbitrage in the Japanese Racetrack Betting Market," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 16(3), pages 322-330, April.
    2. 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.
    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. Anil Gulati & Shekar Shetty, 2007. "Empirical evidence of error in pricing of favorites and longshots in greyhound racing," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 31(1), pages 49-58, March.
    5. Maschke Mario & Schmidt Ulrich, 2011. "Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status quo und Reformansätze," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 60(1), pages 110-124, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. N. Bhattacharya & T. A. Garrett, 2008. "Why people choose negative expected return assets - an empirical examination of a utility theoretic explanation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 27-34.
    10. 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.
    11. Marshall Gramm & Douglas Owens, 2005. "Determinants of betting market efficiency," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 181-185.
    12. Nikolaos Vlastakis & George Dotsis & Raphael N. Markellos, 2009. "How efficient is the European football betting market? Evidence from arbitrage and trading strategies," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 426-444.
    13. Raphael Flepp & Stephan Nüesch & Egon Franck, 2013. "Liquidity, Market Efficiency and the Influence of Noise Traders: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from the Betting Industry," Working Papers 341, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    14. Lionel Page & Robert T. Clemen, 2013. "Do Prediction Markets Produce Well‐Calibrated Probability Forecasts?-super-," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(568), pages 491-513, May.
    15. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nuesch, 2009. "Inter- market Arbitrage in Sports Betting," NCER Working Paper Series 48, National Centre for Econometric Research.
    16. Costa Sperb, L.F. & Sung, M.-C. & Ma, T. & Johnson, J.E.V., 2022. "Turning the heat on financial decisions: Examining the role temperature plays in the incidence of bias in a time-limited financial market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1142-1157.
    17. 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.
    18. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    19. 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.
    20. Matti Koivuranta & Marko Korhonen, 2019. "Misperception explains favorite-longshot bias: evidence from the Finnish and Swedish harness horse race markets," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 2149-2160, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    favourite–longshot bias; horse racing; quinella; bracket quinella;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-21-00684. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.