IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v156y2017icp95-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Everyone’s a winner: The market impact of technologically advantaged agents

Author

Listed:
  • McGee, Richard J.
  • Johnson, Johnnie E.V.

Abstract

Using betting data, we show that a market with agents having heterogeneous utility can include a net transfer of wealth to technologically advantaged agents (TAAs) from non-TAAs with the transaction proving beneficial to both in terms of their realized utility.

Suggested Citation

  • McGee, Richard J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2017. "Everyone’s a winner: The market impact of technologically advantaged agents," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 95-98.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:156:y:2017:i:c:p:95-98
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.04.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176517301696
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.04.021?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. Ruth N. Bolton & Randall G. Chapman, 2008. "Searching For Positive Returns At The Track: A Multinomial Logit Model For Handicapping Horse Races," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 17, pages 151-171, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Asch, Peter & Malkiel, Burton G. & Quandt, Richard E., 1982. "Racetrack betting and informed behavior," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-194, July.
    3. Leighton Vaughan Williams & David Paton, 1998. "Why are some favourite-longshot biases positive and others negative?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(11), pages 1505-1510.
    4. Menkveld, Albert J., 2013. "High frequency trading and the new market makers," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 712-740.
    5. Martin Weitzman, 2008. "Utility Analysis And Group Behavior An Empirical Study," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 9, pages 47-55, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Conlon, Thomas & McGee, Richard J., 2020. "Betting on Bitcoin: Does gambling volume on the blockchain explain Bitcoin price changes?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    5. Kenneth L. Rhoda & Gerard T. Olson & Jack M. Rappaport, 1999. "Risk Preferences And Information Flows In Racetrack Betting Markets," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 22(3), pages 265-285, September.
    6. Johnnie Johnson & Alistair Bruce & Jiejun Yu, 2010. "The ordinal efficiency of betting markets: an exploded logit approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(29), pages 3703-3709.
    7. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    8. 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.
    9. Stekler, H.O. & Sendor, David & Verlander, Richard, 2010. "Issues in sports forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 606-621, July.
      • Herman O. Stekler & David Sendor & Richard Verlander, 2009. "Issues in Sports Forecasting," Working Papers 2009-002, The George Washington University, Department of Economics, H. O. Stekler Research Program on Forecasting.
    10. 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.
    11. William Hurley & Lawrence McDonough, 2007. "Imperfect Market-Maker Competition, Heterogeneous Expectations, and The Favourite-Longshot Bias in Wagering Markets," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 3-12, February.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2011. "The Reverse Favorite-Longshot Bias in the National Hockey League: Do Bettors Still Score on Longshots?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(1), pages 106-117, February.
    17. Norton, Hugh & Gray, Steve & Faff, Robert, 2015. "Yes, one-day international cricket ‘in-play’ trading strategies can be profitable!," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(S2), pages 164-176.
    18. 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.
    19. Brown, Lawrence D. & Lin, Yi, 2003. "Racetrack betting and consensus of subjective probabilities," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 175-187, April.
    20. Montone, Maurizio, 2021. "Optimal pricing in the online betting market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 344-363.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market making; Market regulation; Heterogeneous agent utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:eee:ecolet:v:156:y:2017:i:c:p:95-98. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.