Gamblers who participate in skill-oriented games (such as poker and sports-betting) are motivated to win over the long-term, and some monitor their betting outcomes to evaluate their performance and proficiency. In this study of Australian off-track horserace betting, we investigated which levels of sustained returns would be required to establish evidence of skill/expertise. We modelled a random strategy to simulate ‘naïve’ play, in which equal bets were placed on randomly selected horses using a representative sample of 211 weekend races. Results from a Monte Carlo simulation yielded a distribution of return-on-investments for varying number of bets (N), showing surprising volatility, even after a large number of repeated bets. After adjusting for the house advantage, a gambler would have to place over 10,000 bets in individual races with net returns exceeding 9 % to be reasonably considered an expert punter (α = .05). Moreover, a record of fewer bets would require even greater returns for demonstrating expertise. As such, validated expertise is likely to be rare among race bettors. We argue that the counter-intuitively high threshold for demonstrating expertise by tracking historical performance is likely to exacerbate known cognitive biases in self-evaluation of expertise.
Horse racing Expertise Monte Carlo simulation Self-assessment Statistics Performance-monitoring
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Brownstein, A. L., Read, S. J., & Simon, D. (2004). Bias at the racetrack: Effects of individual expertise and task importance on predecision reevaluation of alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30(7), 891–904. doi:10.1177/0146167204264083.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M. J., Fugelsang, J. A., MacLaren, V. V., & Harrigan, K. A. (2013). Gamblers can discriminate “tight” from “loose” electronic gambling machines. International Gambling Studies,13(1), 98–111. doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.712151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(1), 5–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(6), 1121–1134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
May, P. (2013). In search of the winning system. Compton: Racing Post & Raceform.Google Scholar
McMullan, J. L., & Kervin, M. (2012). Selling internet gambling: Advertising, new media and the content of poker promotion. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,10(5), 622–645. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9336-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, G., Meduna, M. von, Brosowski, T., & Hayer, T. Is poker a game of skill or chance? A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9327-8.
Mitrovic, D. V., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: A study of distorted cognitions, motivation and alexithymia. Journal of gambling studies/co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming,25(4), 489–502. doi:10.1007/s10899-009-9140-1.Google Scholar
Mun, J. (2006). Modeling risk: Applying Monte Carlo simulation, real options analysis, forecasting, and optimization techniques. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Waylen, A. E., Horswill, M. S., Alexander, J. L., & McKenna, F. P. (2004). Do expert drivers have a reduced illusion of superiority? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,7(4–5), 323–331. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2004.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar