IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/09-627.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Insider Trading on Forecasting in a Bookmakers' Horse Betting Market

Author

Listed:
  • A. SCHNYTZER
  • M. LAMERS
  • V. MAKROPOULOU
  • -

Abstract

This paper uses a new variable based on estimates of insider trading to forecast the outcome of horse races. We base our analysis on Schnytzer, Lamers and Makropoulou (2008) who showed that inside trading in the 1997-1998 Australian racetrack betting market represents somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of all trading in this market. They show that the presence of insiders leads opening prices to deviate from true winning probabilities. Under these circumstances, forecasting of race outcomes should take into account an estimate of the extent of insider trading per horse. We show that the added value of this new variable for profitable betting is sufficient to reduce the losses when only prices are taken into account. Since the only variables taken into account in either Schnytzer, Lamers and Makropoulou (2008) or this paper are price data, this is tantamount to a demonstration that the market is, in practice, weak-form efficient.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Schnytzer & M. Lamers & V. Makropoulou & -, 2009. "The Impact of Insider Trading on Forecasting in a Bookmakers' Horse Betting Market," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 09/627, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:09/627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_09_627.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adi Schnytzer & Martien Lamers & Vasiliki Makropoulou, 2009. "Measuring the Extent of Inside Trading in Horse Betting Markets," Working Papers 2009-10, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    2. Schnytzer, Adi & Shilony, Yuval, 1995. "Inside Information in a Betting Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(431), pages 963-971, July.
    3. Adi Schnytzer & Avichai Snir, 2008. "Herding in Imperfect Betting Markets with Inside Traders," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Shin, Hyun Song, 1991. "Optimal Betting Odds against Insider Traders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1179-1185, September.
    5. Shin, Hyun Song, 1993. "Measuring the Incidence of Insider Trading in a Market for State-Contingent Claims," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1141-1153, September.
    6. Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Prices Of State Contingent Claims With Insider Traders, And The Favourite-Longshot Bias," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Donald B Hausch & Victor SY Lo & William T Ziemba (ed.), Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 34, pages 343-352, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2016. "Probabilistic forecasting with discrete choice models: Evaluating predictions with pseudo-coefficients of determination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1021-1030.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. M. Sung & J. E. V. Johnson, 2010. "Revealing Weak‐Form Inefficiency in a Market for State Contingent Claims: The Importance of Market Ecology, Modelling Procedures and Investment Strategies," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 128-147, January.
    5. 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).
    6. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    7. Stefan Winter & Martin Kukuk, 2008. "Do horses like vodka and sponging? - On market manipulation and the favourite-longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 75-87.
    8. D. A. Peel & D. Law & M. Cain, 1999. "Market movers and tote and bookmakers returns: further empirical evidence on a market anomaly," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(12), pages 801-804.
    9. Stewart Hodges & Hao Lin & Lan Liu, 2013. "Fixed Odds Bookmaking with Stochastic Betting Demands," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 19(2), pages 399-417, March.
    10. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2011. "Sentimental Preferences and the Organizational Regime of Betting Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 502-518, October.
    11. Stephen Morris, 1997. "Risk, uncertainty and hidden information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 235-269, May.
    12. Kai Fischer & Justus Haucap, 2022. "Home advantage in professional soccer and betting market efficiency: The role of spectator crowds," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 294-316, May.
    13. McAlvanah, Patrick & Moul, Charles C., 2013. "The house doesn’t always win: Evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 87-99.
    14. Bag, Parimal Kanti & Saha, Bibhas, 2011. "Match-fixing under competitive odds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 318-344.
    15. Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2002. "Is one price enough to value a state-contingent asset correctly? Evidence from a gambling market," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 33-38.
    16. M. Cain & D. Law & D. A. Peel, 2003. "Some analysis of the properties of the Harville place formulae when allowance is made for the favourite-long shot bias employing Shin Win probabilities," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 53-57.
    17. Parimal Kanti Bag & Bibhas Saha, 2010. "Betting in the Shadow of Match-Fixing," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 011, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Vincenzo Candila & Antonio Scognamillo, 2019. "On the Longshot Bias in Tennis Betting Markets: The Casco Normalization," Working Papers 3_236, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno.
    19. Vincenzo Candila & Lucio Palazzo, 2020. "Neural Networks and Betting Strategies for Tennis," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Williams, Leighton Vaughan & Paton, David, 1997. "Why Is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(440), pages 150-158, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rug:rugwps:09/627. 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: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.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.