IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jecfin/v42y2018i4d10.1007_s12197-018-9437-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comment on Paul and Weinbach’s (2005) “Bettor preferences and efficient markets in totals markets”

Author

Listed:
  • James Francisco

    (AUM College of Public Policy and Justice)

  • Evan Moore

    (AUM College of Public Policy and Justice)

Abstract

Paul and Weinbach (J Econ Financ 29:409–415, 2005) tested the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) in college and arena football betting markets. The authors found that the totals markets were not efficient, with the “over” bet overvalued, but suggested the likelihood that this would change over time as bettors incorporated more information. In this paper, we find, based on a more recent NCAA college football dataset, that the market has largely corrected itself. The totals market in major college football over the period of 2003–2015 shows an efficient market in that neither a naïve strategy of betting “over” nor “under” is profitable.

Suggested Citation

  • James Francisco & Evan Moore, 2018. "A comment on Paul and Weinbach’s (2005) “Bettor preferences and efficient markets in totals markets”," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(4), pages 836-840, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jecfin:v:42:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s12197-018-9437-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s12197-018-9437-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12197-018-9437-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12197-018-9437-y?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. repec:bla:jfinan:v:43:y:1988:i:4:p:995-1008 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Rodney Paul & Andrew Weinbach, 2005. "Bettor preferences and market efficiency in football totals markets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 29(3), pages 409-415, September.
    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. Robert Arscott, 2023. "Market Efficiency and Censoring Bias in College Football Gambling," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(5), pages 664-689, June.
    2. James Francisco & Evan Moore, 2019. "Betting with house money: reverse line movement based strategies in college football totals markets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 43(4), pages 813-827, October.

    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. Andrew Weinbach & Rodney J. Paul, 2009. "National television coverage and the behavioural bias of bettors: the American college football totals market," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 55-66, April.
    2. Randall W. Bennett, 2019. "Holdover Bias in the College Football Betting Market," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(1), pages 103-110, March.
    3. Evan Moore & James Francisco, 2019. "Efficiency, Profitability, and College Football: do Bettors Overrate the Major Conferences in Interconference Play?," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(2), pages 159-167, June.
    4. Steven Salaga & Scott Tainsky, 2015. "The Effects of Outcome Uncertainty, Scoring, and Pregame Expectations on Nielsen Ratings for Bowl Championship Series Games," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 16(5), pages 439-459, June.
    5. Robert Arscott, 2023. "Market Efficiency and Censoring Bias in College Football Gambling," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(5), pages 664-689, June.
    6. Kevin Krieger & Justin L. Davis & James Strode, 2021. "Patience is a virtue: exploiting behavior bias in gambling markets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 45(4), pages 735-750, October.
    7. Kevin Krieger & Justin Davis, 2024. "Examining the impact of visibility on market efficiency: lessons from movement in NFL betting lines," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 48(2), pages 263-279, June.
    8. James Francisco & Evan Moore, 2019. "Betting with house money: reverse line movement based strategies in college football totals markets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 43(4), pages 813-827, October.
    9. Kenneth Linna & Evan Moore & Rodney Paul & Andrew Weinbach, 2014. "The Effects of the Clock and Kickoff Rule Changes on Actual and Market-Based Expected Scoring in NCAA Football," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    College football; Financial markets; Gambling; Recreation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    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:spr:jecfin:v:42:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s12197-018-9437-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.