IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v12y2011i1p106-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reverse Favorite-Longshot Bias in the National Hockey League: Do Bettors Still Score on Longshots?

Author

Listed:
  • Linda M. Woodland

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, Eastern Michigan University, MI, USA, LWoodland@emich.edu)

  • Bill M. Woodland

    (Department of Economics, Eastern Michigan University, MI, USA)

Abstract

The favorite—longshot bias, the tendency of bettors to underbet favorites and overbet longshots (underdogs), has received considerable attention in the economics and finance literature. Although the bias is prevalent in racetrack betting, with pari-mutuel odds, researchers have detected a reverse bias in two fixed-odds betting markets in the United States. A weak bias was documented for Major League Baseball for 22 seasons. It was also found to be present in the National Hockey League betting market and was of sufficient strength to allow for profitable wagering opportunities. This article analyzes 10 additional seasons of hockey wagering. The bias is sustained for the first three seasons but disappears in the last seven seasons as the market converges to efficiency. This contrasts with the baseball betting market, where the bias persists.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:106-117
    DOI: 10.1177/1527002510368792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1527002510368792
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1527002510368792?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2001. "Market Efficiency and Profitable Wagering in the National Hockey League: Can Bettors Score on Longshots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(4), pages 983-995, April.
    2. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    6. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2003. "The Reverse Favourite–longshot Bias and Market Efficiency in Major League Baseball: An Update," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 113-123, April.
    7. John M. Gandar & Richard A. Zuber & R. Stafford Johnson, 2004. "A Reexamination of the Efficiency of the Betting Market on National Hockey League Games," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 5(2), pages 152-168, May.
    8. Vaughan Williams,Leighton (ed.), 2005. "Information Efficiency in Financial and Betting Markets," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521816038, November.
    9. 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.
    10. David Peel & David Law, 2009. "A More General Non‐expected Utility Model as an Explanation of Gambling Outcomes for Individuals and Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 251-263, April.
    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. David Alan Peel, 2013. "On the Implications of the Markowitz Model of Utility embodying Gain Seeking Preferences for Odds on Betting and Bookmakers choice of Spread or Odds Betting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1420-1428.
    2. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2015. "The National Football League season wins total betting market: The impact of heuristics on behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 38-54, July.
    3. Simon Kloker & Tim Straub & Christof Weinhardt, 2019. "Moderators for Partition Dependence in Prediction Markets," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 723-756, August.
    4. Christian Deutscher & Marius Ötting & Sandra Schneemann & Hendrik Scholten, 2019. "The Demand for English Premier League Soccer Betting," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(4), pages 556-579, May.
    5. Daniel C. Hickman, 2020. "Efficiency in the madness? examining the betting market for the ncaa men’s basketball tournament," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 44(3), pages 611-626, July.
    6. Jaume García & Levi Pérez & Plácido Rodríguez, 2017. "Forecasting football match results: are the many smarter than the few?," Chapters, in: Plácido Rodríguez & Brad R. Humphreys & Robert Simmons (ed.), The Economics of Sports Betting, chapter 5, pages 71-91, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Berkowitz, Jason P. & Depken, Craig A. & Gandar, John M., 2017. "A favorite-longshot bias in fixed-odds betting markets: Evidence from college basketball and college football," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 233-239.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. David Forrest & Ian Mchale, 2007. "Anyone for Tennis (Betting)?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 751-768.
    5. 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.
    6. Jason P. Berkowitz & Craig A. Depken II & John M. Gandar, 2018. "The Conversion of Money Lines Into Win Probabilities," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(7), pages 990-1015, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Adi Schnytzer & Guy Weinberg, 2008. "Testing for Home Team and Favorite Biases in the Australian Rules Football Fixed-Odds and Point Spread Betting Markets," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 9(2), pages 173-190, April.
    10. Linda M. Woodland & Bill M. Woodland, 2015. "The National Football League season wins total betting market: The impact of heuristics on behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 38-54, July.
    11. 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.
    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. William H. Dare & Steven A. Dennis, 2011. "A Test for Bias of Inherent Characteristics in Betting Markets," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(6), pages 660-665, December.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Bruce, A.C. & Johnson, J.E.V. & Peirson, J., 2012. "Recreational versus professional bettors: Performance differences and efficiency implications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 172-174.
    17. Alistair Bruce & David Marginson, 2014. "Power, Not Fear: A Collusion-Based Account of Betting Market Inefficiency," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 77-97, February.
    18. Tai, Chung-Ching & Lin, Hung-Wen & Chie, Bin-Tzong & Tung, Chen-Yuan, 2019. "Predicting the failures of prediction markets: A procedure of decision making using classification models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 297-312.
    19. Schmidt, Carsten & Strobel, Martin & Volkland, Henning Oskar, 2008. "Accuracy, certainty and surprise : a prediction market on the outcome of the 2002 FIFA World Cup," Papers 08-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    20. 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.

    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:sae:jospec:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:106-117. 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: SAGE Publications (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.