IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tem/wpaper/1101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comment on "Investigating Allegations of Pointshaving in NCAA Basketball Using Actual Sportsbook Betting Percentages"

Author

Listed:
  • George Diemer

    (Department of Economics, Temple University)

Abstract

A recent article by Paul and Weinbach (2011) has two objectives. The first is to reject the conventional wisdom that sports books operate by balancing the action on the games. The second objective of Paul and Weinbach is to investigate point shaving. This second section of the paper falls short in recognizing the incentive to decrease detection, incomplete treatment of previous literature, logistics and methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • George Diemer, 2011. "Comment on "Investigating Allegations of Pointshaving in NCAA Basketball Using Actual Sportsbook Betting Percentages"," DETU Working Papers 1101, Department of Economics, Temple University.
    • Handle: RePEc:tem:wpaper:1101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cla.temple.edu/RePEc/documents/detu_11_01.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rodney J. Paul & Andrew P. Weinbach, 2012. "Response to Comment on “Investigating Allegations of Pointshaving in NCAA Basketball Using Actual Sportsbook Betting Percentagesâ€," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 13(2), pages 211-217, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gambling; Sports; Betting; Efficient Markets;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    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:tem:wpaper:1101. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Dimitrios Diamantaras (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edtemus.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.