IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/stapro/v62y2003i2p175-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Racetrack betting and consensus of subjective probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Brown, Lawrence D.
  • Lin, Yi

Abstract

In this paper we consider the dynamic process of race track betting. We show that there is a close connection between the dynamic race track betting process and the pari-mutuel method for constructing consensus of subjective probabilities considered in Eisenberg and Gale. This enables us to show that there exists a unique equilibrium point for the betting process. We further show that the dynamic betting process converges to this equilibrium point almost surely. Therefore the sequential race track betting gives a natural approach to inducing the consensus probabilities in Eisenberg and Gale. These consensus probabilities are different from the average of the subjective probabilities which is used in the conventional way of combining individually held opinions into a collective group statement. We compare these probabilities and this leads to a potential explanation of the favorite-longshot bias consistently observed in the studies of race track betting.

Suggested Citation

  • Brown, Lawrence D. & Lin, Yi, 2003. "Racetrack betting and consensus of subjective probabilities," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 175-187, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:62:y:2003:i:2:p:175-187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7152(03)00009-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Donald B. Hausch & William T. Ziemba & Mark Rubinstein, 1981. "Efficiency of the Market for Racetrack Betting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(12), pages 1435-1452, December.
    3. Busche, Kelly & Hall, Christopher D, 1988. "An Exception to the Risk Preference Anomaly," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 337-346, July.
    4. 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..
    5. 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. 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.
    2. Manski, Charles F., 2006. "Interpreting the predictions of prediction markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 425-429, June.

    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. Swidler, Steve & Shaw, Ron, 1995. "Racetrack wagering and the "uninformed" bettor: A study of market efficiency," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 305-314.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Kelly Busche & W. David Walls, 2000. "Decision Costs And Betting Market Efficiency," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(4), pages 477-492, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Roman Malaric & Tomislav Katic & Dubravko Sabolic, 2007. "The market efficiency of the soccer fixed odds internet betting market," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 171-174.
    11. Jullien, Bruno & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Empirical Evidence on the Preferences of Racetrack Bettors," IDEI Working Papers 178, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    12. 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.
    13. Brown, Alasdair & Yang, Fuyu, 2015. "Does society underestimate women? Evidence from the performance of female jockeys in horse racing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 106-118.
    14. 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.
    15. Roderick Bain & Donald Hausch & William Ziemba, 2006. "An application of expert information to win betting on the Kentucky Derby, 1981-2005," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 283-301.
    16. Golec, Joseph & Tamarkin, Maurry, 1991. "The degree of inefficiency in the football betting market : Statistical tests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 311-323, December.
    17. W. David Walls & Kelly Busche, 1996. "Betting volume and market efficiency in Hong Kong race track betting," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(12), pages 783-787.
    18. Woodland, Bill M & Woodland, Linda M, 1991. "The Effects of Risk Aversion on Wagering: Point Spread versus Odds," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 638-653, June.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:stapro:v:62:y:2003:i:2:p:175-187. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.