IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v40y2008i1p5-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bounded cumulative prospect theory: some implications for gambling outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Cain
  • David Law
  • David Peel

Abstract

Standard parametric specifications of Cumulative Prospect theory (CPT) can explain why agents bet on longshots at actuarially unfair odds. However, the standard specification of CPT cannot explain why people might bet on more favoured outcomes, where by construction the greatest volume of money is bet. This article outlines a parametric specification than can consistently explain gambling over all outcomes. In particular we assume that the value function is bounded from above and below and that the degree of loss aversion experienced by the agent is smaller for small-stake gambles (as a proportion of wealth) than usually assumed in CPT. There are a number of new implications of this specification. Boundedness of the value function in CPT implies that the indifference curve between expected-return and win-probability for a given stake will typically exhibit both an asymptote (implying rejection of an infinite gain bet) and a minimum, as the shape of the value function dominates the probability weighting function. Also the high probability section of the indifference curve will exhibit a maximum.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2008. "Bounded cumulative prospect theory: some implications for gambling outcomes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 5-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:40:y:2008:i:1:p:5-15
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840701728765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840701728765
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036840701728765?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. Gilbert W. Bassett, Jr., 1987. "The St. Petersburg Paradox and Bounded Utility," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 517-523, Winter.
    2. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:26:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Charles T. Clotfelter & Philip J. Cook, 1989. "Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number clot89-1.
    4. David Peel & David Law, 2007. "Betting on odds on Favorites as an Optimal Choice in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(26), pages 1-10.
    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 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.
    2. Mao-Wei Hung & Jr-Yan Wang, 2011. "Loss aversion and the term structure of interest rates," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(29), pages 4623-4640.
    3. David Alan Peel & David Law, 2017. "Loss Aversion And Ruinous Optimal Wagers In Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 352-360.
    4. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2009. "The expo-power value function as a candidate for the work-horse specification in parametric versions of cumulative prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 326-329, December.
    5. David A. Peel & Davind Law, 2009. "An Explanation of Optimal Each-Way Bets based on Non-Expected Utility Theory," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 3(2), pages 15-35, September.

    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. repec:lan:wpaper:3312 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. M Cain & D Law & D Peel, 2005. "Cumulative prospect theory and gambling," Working Papers 566823, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. repec:lan:wpaper:3582 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:lan:wpaper:3216 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:lan:wpaper:3214 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Thomas A. Garrett & Russell S. Sobel, 2004. "State Lottery Revenue: The Importance of Game Characteristics," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(3), pages 313-330, May.
    7. David Alan Peel & David Law, 2017. "Loss Aversion And Ruinous Optimal Wagers In Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 352-360.
    8. Glenn P. Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo, 2004. "The Taxation and Regulation of Casino’s and Games of Chance in the Dominican Republic," Development Discussion Papers 2004-07, JDI Executive Programs.
    9. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    10. Skidmore, Mark & Serkan Tosun, Mehmet, 2008. "Do New Lottery Games Stimulate Retail Activity? Evidence from West Virginia Counties," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 38(1), pages 1-11.
    11. David R. Just & Hope C. Michelson, 2007. "Wealth as Welfare: Are Wealth Thresholds behind Persistent Poverty?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 419-426.
    12. Brown, Ryan P. & Rork, Jonathan C., 2005. "Copycat gaming: A spatial analysis of state lottery structure," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 795-807, November.
    13. Nichols, Mark W. & Tosun, Mehmet Serkan, 2017. "The impact of legalized casino gambling on crime," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-15.
    14. Harriet A. Stranahan & Mary O. Borg, 2004. "Some Futures are Brighter than Others: the Net Benefits Received by Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Recipients," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(1), pages 105-126, January.
    15. Ghent, Linda S. & Grant, Alan P., 2010. "The Demand for Lottery Products and Their Distributional Consequences," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 63(2), pages 253-268, June.
    16. Ursula Hauser‐Rethaller & Ulrich König, 2002. "Parimutuel Lotteries: Gamblers' Behavior and the Demand for Tickets," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(2), pages 223-245, May.
    17. David Forrest, 2008. "Gambling Policy in the European Union: Too Many Losers?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(4), pages 540-569, December.
    18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:8:y:2003:i:10:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Spencer, Michael A. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Shogren, Jason F. & List, John A., 2009. "Rebate rules in threshold public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 798-806, June.
    20. Sarah Brown & Andy Dickerson & Jolian McHardy & Karl Taylor, 2010. "Gambling and the use of credit: an individual and household level analysis," Working Papers 2010005, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2010.
    21. William R. Eadington, 1999. "The Economics of Casino Gambling," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 173-192, Summer.
    22. Elizabeth A. Freund & Irwin L. Morris, 2005. "The Lottery and Income Inequality in the States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(s1), pages 996-1012, December.
    23. Fiedler, Ingo & Kairouz, Sylvia & Costes, Jean-Michel & Weißmüller, Kristina S., 2019. "Gambling spending and its concentration on problem gamblers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 82-91.
    24. Thomas A. Garrett, 2012. "The Distributional Burden of Instant Lottery Ticket Expenditures," Public Finance Review, , vol. 40(6), pages 767-788, November.
    25. Jon D. Wisman, 2006. "State Lotteries: Using State Power to Fleece the Poor," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 955-966, December.

    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:taf:applec:v:40:y:2008:i:1:p:5-15. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.