IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nhhfms/2017_006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Profitable Robot Strategies in Pari-Mutuel Betting

Author

Listed:
  • Bjerksund, Petter

    (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics)

  • Stensland, Gunnar

    (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics)

Abstract

We have collected odds and results from 7 474 horse races in Norway and Sweden for a period of approximately 1.5 years. Based on the odds from the win game, we construct a profitable betting strategy for the corresponding triple game. Given a 30% track take, the existence of a profitable strategy is surprising. A robot is typically needed to identify and exploit underrated bets. We argue that the existence of heterogeneous beliefs between players in the market might form a basis for profitable betting strategies. We did expect that bigger pools (more liquidity) would remove this anomaly. That is not the case. More players, and thereby bigger pools, increases the profitability of the system.

Suggested Citation

  • Bjerksund, Petter & Stensland, Gunnar, 2017. "Profitable Robot Strategies in Pari-Mutuel Betting," Discussion Papers 2017/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:nhhfms:2017_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2437106
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2015. "Price Reaction to Information with Heterogeneous Beliefs and Wealth Effects: Underreaction, Momentum, and Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 1-34, January.
    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. Nicolae Gârleanu & Lasse Heje Pedersen, 2018. "Efficiently Inefficient Markets for Assets and Asset Management," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1663-1712, August.
    4. Stephen R. Blough, 2008. "Differences Of Opinion At The Racetrack," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 33, pages 323-341, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. 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..
    6. 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.
    7. Hurley, William & McDonough, Lawrence, 1995. "A Note on the Hayek Hypothesis and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Betting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 949-955, September.
    8. Victor S. Y. Lo & John Bacon-Shone & Kelly Busche, 1995. "The Application of Ranking Probability Models to Racetrack Betting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1048-1059, June.
    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. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Maschke Mario & Schmidt Ulrich, 2011. "Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status quo und Reformansätze," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 60(1), pages 110-124, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Brown, Lawrence D. & Lin, Yi, 2003. "Racetrack betting and consensus of subjective probabilities," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 175-187, April.
    9. Kajii, Atsushi & Watanabe, Takahiro, 2017. "Favorite–longshot bias in pari-mutuel betting: An evolutionary explanation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 56-69.
    10. Karl Whelan, 2024. "Risk aversion and favourite–longshot bias in a competitive fixed‐odds betting market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(361), pages 188-209, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Leighton Vaughan Williams & Ming‐Chien Sung & Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & John Peirson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2018. "Towards an Understanding of the Origins of the Favourite–Longshot Bias: Evidence from Online Poker Markets, a Real‐money Natural Laboratory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 360-382, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Zhang, Chi & Thijssen, Jacco, 2022. "On sticky bookmaking as a learning device in horse-racing betting markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Piotr Borowski & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "Machine learning in the prediction of flat horse racing results in Poland," Working Papers 2021-13, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    16. 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.
    17. Lo Victor S & Bacon-Shone John, 2008. "Probability and Statistical Models for Racing," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, April.
    18. David Paton & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2001. "Monopoly Rents and Price Fixing in Betting Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(3), pages 265-278, November.
    19. 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.
    20. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Horse races; low odds bias; heterogeneous beliefs;
    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:hhs:nhhfms:2017_006. 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: Stein Fossen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dfnhhno.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.