Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 51–64 | Cite as

Do bettors prefer long shots because they are risk-lovers, or are they just overconfident?

  • Joseph Golec
  • Maurry Tamarkin
Article

Abstract

This study examines whether bettors' risk preferences or overconfidence in choosing winners better explains their well documented preference for low-probability wagers. Although previous studies using racetrack data often suggest that risk-loving behavior explains long-shot preference, such data cannot distinguish between the alternative explanations. We use football betting data to make the comparison and find that overconfidence more closely fits the data. This result complements evidence of overconfidence from behavioral studies as well as stock-market models of overconfident noise traders.

Key words

overconfidence risk-lovers long shots football gambling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali, Mukhtar M. (1977). “Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors,”Journal of Political Economy 85, 803–815.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, Mukhtar M. (1979). “Some Evidence of the Efficiency of a Speculative Market,”Econometrica 47, 387–392.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, Peter, Burton G. Malkiel, and Richard E. Quandt. (1982). “Racetrack Betting and Informed Behavior,”Journal of Financial Economics 10, 187–194.Google Scholar
  4. Asch, Peter, and Richard E. Quandt. (1987). “Efficiency and Profitability in Exotic Bets,”Economica 54, 289–298.Google Scholar
  5. Crafts, N. F. R. (1985). “Some Evidence of Insider Knowledge in Horse Race Betting in Britain,”Economica 52, 295–304.Google Scholar
  6. De Long, Bradford J., Andrei Shleifer, Lawrence H. Summers, and Robert J. Waldmann. (1991). “The Survival of Noise Traders,”Journal of Business 64, 1–19.Google Scholar
  7. Dowie, Jack. (1976). “On the Efficiency and Equity of Betting Markets,”Econometrica 43, 139–150.Google Scholar
  8. Gabriel, Paul E., and James R. Marsden. (1990). “An Examination of Market Efficiency in the British Race-track Betting,”Journal of Political Economy 98, 874–885.Google Scholar
  9. Gandar, John, Richard Zuber, Thomas O'Brien, and Ben Russo. (1988). “Testing Market Rationality in the Point Spread Betting Market,”Journal of Finance 43, 995–1007.Google Scholar
  10. Gilovich, Thomas. (1983). “Biased Evaluation and Persistence in Gambling,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 1110–1126.Google Scholar
  11. Golec, Joseph, and Maurry Tamarkin. (1991). “The Degree of Inefficiency in the Football Betting Market: Statistical Tests,”Journal of Financial Economics 30, 311–323.Google Scholar
  12. Heath, Chip, and Amos Tversky. (1991). “Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 5–28.Google Scholar
  13. March, James, G., and Zur Shapira. (1987). “Managerial Perspectives on Risk Taking,”Management Science 33, 1404–1417.Google Scholar
  14. Quandt, Richard E. (1986). “Betting and Equilibrium,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 101, 201–207.Google Scholar
  15. Rosett, Richard N. (1971). “Weak Experimental Verification of the Expected Utility Hypothesis,”Review of Economic Studies 38, 481–492.Google Scholar
  16. Snyder, Wayne W. (1978). “Horse Racing: Testing the Efficient Markets Model,”Journal of Finance 33, 1109–1118.Google Scholar
  17. Stern, Hal. (1986) “The Probability of Winning a Football Game as a Function of the Pointspread.” Technical Report No. 59, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Thaler, Richard H., and William T. Ziemba. (1988). “Parimutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries,”Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 161–174.Google Scholar
  19. Tuckwell, R. H. (1981). “Anomalies in the Gambling Market,”Australian Journal of Statistics 23, 287–295.Google Scholar
  20. Tuckwell, R. H. (1983). “The Thoroughbred Gambling Market: Efficiency, Equity and Related Issues,”Australian Economic Papers (June), 106–118.Google Scholar
  21. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  22. Tversky, Amos, Paul Slovic, and Daniel Kahneman. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” AmericanEconomic Review 80, 205–217.Google Scholar
  23. Vergin, Roger C., and Michael Scriabin. (1978). “Winning Strategies for Wagering on National Football League Games,”Management Science 24, 809–818.Google Scholar
  24. Weitzman, Martin. (1965). “Utility Analysis and Group Behavior: an Empirical Study,”Journal of Political Economy 73, 18–26.Google Scholar
  25. Winkler, Robert L. (1971). “Probabilistic Prediction: Some Experimental Results,”Journal of the American Statistical Association 66, 675–685.Google Scholar
  26. Zuber, Richard A., John M. Gandar, and Benny D. Bowers. (1985). “Beating the Spread: Testing Efficiency of the Gambling Market for NFL Games,”Journal of Political Economy 92, 800–806.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Golec
    • 1
  • Maurry Tamarkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of ManagementClark UniversityWorcester

Personalised recommendations