IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ove/journl/aid12835.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does betting experience matter in sequential risk taking in horse race wagering?

Author

Listed:
  • Jani Saastamoinen
  • Niko Suhonen

Abstract

This paper examines how betting experience is associated with horse race bettors’ sequential risk taking. We use an individual-level data set of 5,217 individual bettors with 167,816 betting-related transactions. Our analyses suggest that inexperienced bettors take on more risk than experienced bettors do after they experience gains. We also find some indication that experienced bettors become more risk averse than inexperienced ones after incurring losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jani Saastamoinen & Niko Suhonen, 2018. "Does betting experience matter in sequential risk taking in horse race wagering?," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 137-143.
    • Handle: RePEc:ove:journl:aid:12835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/EBL/article/view/12835
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Barberis & Wei Xiong, 2009. "What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long‐Standing Preference‐Based Explanation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(2), pages 751-784, April.
    2. Colin Camerer & Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein & Richard Thaler, 1997. "Labor Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 407-441.
    3. Yu-Jane Liu & Chih-Ling Tsai & Ming-Chun Wang & Ning Zhu, 2010. "Prior Consequences and Subsequent Risk Taking: New Field Evidence from the Taiwan Futures Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 606-620, April.
    4. Chernenko, Sergey & Hanson, Samuel G. & Sunderam, Adi, 2016. "Who neglects risk? Investor experience and the credit boom," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 248-269.
    5. Markku Kaustia & Samuli Knüpfer, 2008. "Do Investors Overweight Personal Experience? Evidence from IPO Subscriptions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2679-2702, December.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Gary Smith & Michael Levere & Robert Kurtzman, 2009. "Poker Player Behavior After Big Wins and Big Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1547-1555, September.
    8. Lei Feng & Mark Seasholes, 2005. "Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?," Review of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 305-351, September.
    9. Greenwood, Robin & Nagel, Stefan, 2009. "Inexperienced investors and bubbles," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 239-258, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Lei Feng & Mark S. Seasholes, 2005. "Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 9(3), pages 305-351.
    14. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    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. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jiangze Bian & Kalok Chan & Donghui Shi & Hao Zhou, 2018. "Do Behavioral Biases Affect Order Aggressiveness?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 22(3), pages 1121-1151.
    3. Huang, Yu Chuan & Chan, Shu Hui, 2014. "The house money and break-even effects for different types of traders: Evidence from Taiwan futures markets," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Chakravarty, Sugato & Ray, Rina, 2020. "On short-term institutional trading skill, behavioral biases, and liquidity need," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Darren Duxbury & Robert Hudson & Kevin Keasey & Zhishu Yang & Songyao Yao, 2013. "How prior realized outcomes affect portfolio decisions," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 611-629, November.
    6. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    7. Tanjim Hossain & John A. List, 2012. "The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2151-2167, December.
    8. van Dooren, Bono & Galema, Rients, 2018. "Socially responsible investors and the disposition effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 42-52.
    9. Ormos, Mihály & Joó, István, 2011. "Diszpozíciós hatás a magyar tőkepiacon [Disposition effect in the Hungarian capital market]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 743-758.
    10. Menkhoff, Lukas & Nikiforow, Marina, 2009. "Professionals' endorsement of behavioral finance: Does it impact their perception of markets and themselves?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 318-329, August.
    11. Arnold, Marc & Pelster, Matthias & Subrahmanyam, Marti G., 2022. "Attention triggers and investors’ risk-taking," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(2), pages 846-875.
    12. Juanjuan Meng & Xi Weng, 2018. "Can Prospect Theory Explain the Disposition Effect? A New Perspective on Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3331-3351, July.
    13. Cristiana Cerqueira Leal & Gilberto Loureiro & Manuel J. Rocha Armada, 2018. "Selling winners, buying losers: Mental decision rules of individual investors on their holdings," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 24(3), pages 362-386, June.
    14. Barber, Brad M. & Odean, Terrance, 2013. "The Behavior of Individual Investors," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1533-1570, Elsevier.
    15. Duxbury, Darren & Hudson, Robert & Keasey, Kevin & Yang, Zhishu & Yao, Songyao, 2015. "Do the disposition and house money effects coexist? A reconciliation of two behavioral biases using individual investor-level data," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 55-68.
    16. 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.
    17. Chan, Kalok & Wang, Baolian & Yang, Zhishu, 2019. "Why investors do not buy cheaper securities: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 59-76.
    18. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    19. Jonathan E. Ingersoll Jr. & Lawrence J. Jin, 2014. "Realization Utility with Reference-Dependent Preferences," Papers 1408.2859, arXiv.org.
    20. Jin, Miao & Liu, Yu-Jane & Meng, Juanjuan, 2019. "Fat-finger event and risk-taking behavior," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 126-143.

    More about this item

    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:ove:journl:aid:12835. 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: Francisco J. Delgado (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deovies.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.