Journal of Economics and Finance

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 116–122 | Cite as

Regional information and market efficiency: the case of spread betting in United States college football

  • Daniel D. Kuester
  • Shane Sanders


Using game results over a seven year span (1999–2006), we find that United States college football teams in arid regions “win” against the spread in 56.64% of games in which they host a team from a humid region. This result provides statistically significant evidence for both weak and strong form inefficiency in the spread betting markets of such games. By examining other cases of intraregional and interregional competition within the sport, we conclude that this inefficiency does not arise from the effects of travel or home field advantage. Rather, the result indicates that climate aridity is an observed characteristic for which college football betting markets do not accurately control. It is quite rare to find strong form market inefficiency arise from a single variable rather than from an elaborate, multivariable betting strategy. Therefore, the effect of climate aridity upon college football spread betting market efficiency can be characterized as dramatic. It is conjectured that remote market participants may need to “experience” certain types of relevant regional information, such as climate, to act in a market efficient manner.


Market Efficiency Regional Information Sports Betting 

JEL Classification

R10 G14 


  1. Asch P, Malkiel B, Quandt R (1982) Racetrack betting and informed behavior. J Financ Econ 10:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borghesi R (2007) The home team weather advantage and biases in the NFL betting market. J Econ Bus 59(4):340–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gray P, Gray S (1997) Testing market efficiency: evidence from the NFL sports betting market. J Finance 52:1725–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hausch D, Ziemba W, Rubenstein M (1981) Efficiency of the market for racetrack betting. Manag Sci 27:1435–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maule T (1981) “The comeback of Jim Ryun,” The runner magazine: JulyGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul R, Weinbach A (2005) Market efficiency and NCAA college basketball gambling. J Econ Finance 29(3):403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Paul RJ, Weinbach A, Weinbach C (2003) Fair bets and profitability in college football gambling. J Econ Finance 27(2):236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Paul R, Weinbach A, Wilson M (2004) Efficient markets, fair bets, and profitability in NBA Totals 1995–96 to 2001–02. Q Rev Econ Finance 44(4):624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sapra S (2008) Evidence of betting market intraseason efficiency and interseason overreaction to unexpected NFL team performance 1988–2006. J Sports Econ 9(5):488–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sauer R (1998) The economics of wagering markets. J Econ Lit 36(4):2021–2064Google Scholar
  11. Vergin R, Scriabin, M (1978) Winning strategies for wagering in National Football League games. Management Science 24(8):809–818Google Scholar
  12. Woodland L, Woodland B (1994) Market efficiency and the favorite long shot bias: the baseball betting market. J Finance 49(1):269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNicholls State UniversityThibodauxUSA

Personalised recommendations