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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Even W, Noble N (1992) Testing efficiency in gambling markets. Appl Econ 24:85–88
Gandar J, Zuber R, O’Brien T, Russo B (1988) Testing rationality in the point spread betting marker. J Financ 43:995–1007
Paul R, Weinbach A (2005) Bettor preferences and market efficiency in football totals markets. J Econ Financ 29:409–415
Sauer R, Brajer V, Ferris S, Marr M (1988) Hold your bets: another look at the efficiency of the betting market for NFL games. J Polit Econ 96:206–213
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Francisco, J., Moore, E. A comment on Paul and Weinbach’s (2005) “Bettor preferences and efficient markets in totals markets”. J Econ Finan 42, 836–840 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-018-9437-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-018-9437-y