Empirical Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 1335–1351 | Cite as

A dual theory approach to estimating risk preferences in the parimutuel betting market

Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

This paper introduces an alternative empirical approach to estimating risk preferences in the parimutuel betting market using a dual theory model which is amended to include bettors’ misperceptions of probabilities. We replicate previous empirical results and test our alternative empirical approach using parimutuel horse race betting data. Our results suggest that while bettors are risk-averse, they are also prone to misperceiving probabilities by overweighting low probabilities and underweighting high probabilities. As an application, these results replicate the choice patterns consistent with the Allais paradox.

Keywords

Allais paradox Dual theory Probability weighting function Rank-dependent utility 

JEL Classification

D81 L83 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Thomas Epper, Helga Fehr-Duda, David Forrest, Timo Kuosmanen, Timo Tammi, Hannu Vartiainen, Horst Zank and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies and the Finnish Foundation for Gaming Research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ali MM (1977) Probability and utility estimates for racetrack bettors. J Polit Econ 85:803–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais M (1953) Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Criticue des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine. Econometrica 21:503–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen S, Harrison GW, Morten IL, Rutström E (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76(3):583–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce AC, Johnson JEV (2000) Investigating the roots of the favourite-longshot bias: an analysis of decision making by supply- and demand-side agents in parallel betting markets. J Behav Decis Mak 13:413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiappori P-A, Gandhi A, Jullien P, Salanié B, Salanié F (2012) From aggregate betting data to individual risk preferences, No 13-453, TSE Working Papers, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~agandhi/homepage/Amit_Gandhi_files/Horses17October.pdf Accessed 24 Feb 2017
  6. Chiappori P-A, Gandhi A, Salanié B, Salanié F (2009) Identifying preferences under risk from discrete choices. Am Econ Rev 99:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diecidue E, Schmidt U, Zank H (2009) Parametric weighting functions. J Econ Theory 144:1102–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fehr-Duda H, Epper T (2012) Probability and risk: foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annu Rev Econ 4:567–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forrest D, McHale I (2007) Anyone for tennis (betting)? Eur J Financ 13:751–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gandhi A, Serrano-Padial R (2014) Does belief heterogeneity explain asset prices: The Case of the Longshot Bias. Rev Econ Stud ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffith RM (1949) Odds adjustment by American horse-race bettors. Am J Psychol 62:290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cogn Psychol 38:129–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison GW, Rutström E (2008) Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Exp Econ 12(2):133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jullien B, Salanié B (2000) Estimating preferences under risk: the case on racetrack bettors. J Polit Econ 108:503–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanto A, Rosenqvist G, Suvas A (1992) On utility function estimation of racetrack bettors. J Econ Psychol 13:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lattimore PM, Baker JM, White AD (1992) The influence of probability on risky choice. J Econ Behav Organ 17:377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ottaviani M, Sørensen P (2008) The favourite-longshot bias an overview of the main explanations. In: Hausch DB, Ziemba WT (eds) Handbook of sports and lottery markets. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Peel DA, Zhang J, Law D (2008) The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outcomes. Appl Econ 40:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66:497–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Organ 3:323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sauer RD (1998) The economics of wagering markets. J Econ Lit 36:2021–2064Google Scholar
  23. Snowberg E, Wolfers J (2010) Explaining the favorite-longshot bias: is it risk-love or misperceptions? J Polit Econ 118:723–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thaler RH, Ziemba WT (1988) Anomalies: parimutuel betting markets: racetracks and lotteries. J Econ Perspect 2(2):161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wakker PP (1994) Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory Dec 36:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wakker PP, Erev I, Weber EU (1994) Comonotonic independence: the critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. J Risk Uncertain 9:195–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weiztman M (1965) Utility analysis and group behavior: an empirical study. J Polit Econ 73:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zank H (2010) Consistent probability attitudes. J Econ Theory 44:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yaari M (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55:95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Eastern Finland Business SchoolJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Department of Social and Health ManagementUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations