Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:05:49.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - An assessment of quasi-arbitrage opportunities in two fixed-odds horse-race betting markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

Michael A. Smith
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer Canterbury Christ Church University
David Paton
Affiliation:
Professor Nottingham University
Leighton Vaughan Williams
Affiliation:
Professor Nottingham Trent University
Leighton Vaughan Williams
Affiliation:
Nottingham Trent University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter, we build upon work by Vaughan Williams (2000, 2001) and Paton and Vaughan Williams (2005) who examine the concept of Quasi-Arbitrage Opportunities (Quarbs), a class of weak form market inefficiencies. Quarbs exploit apparent differences in subjective assessments of the value of an asset (in this study the asset is a class of state contingent claims, namely racehorse bets). Such a strategy requires the existence of a number of market-makers contemporaneously offering the same asset at different prices. The assumption underpinning a Quarb strategy is that the consensus market price is a better indicator of the asset's objective value than the outlier price. Further, if we can estimate the true or objective value of the asset from the market mean price, it may be possible to trade the asset profitably at the outlier price (in the case of racehorse bets, by obtaining longer odds than the mean).

Our chapter describes the application of a simple Quarb model to two distinct datasets, one comprising 549 races, the other 700 races, to establish whether or not this type of inefficiency is evident in fixed-odds horse-race betting markets in the UK, and whether it can be exploited with an appropriate betting strategy. Specifically, the initial premise is that the mean morning odds available about a horse are a more accurate reflection of its winning chance than the odds outlier.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, M. (2002) Secrets of Successful Betting, Newbury: Raceform, pp. 147–50Google Scholar
Bird, R. and McCrae, M. (1987) ‘Tests of the Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Using Bookmaker Odds’, Management Science, 33(12), pp. 1552–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F. (1970) ‘Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work’, Journal of Finance, 25(2), pp. 383–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausch, D. B., Ziemba, W. T. and Rubinstein, M. (1981) ‘Efficiency of the market for racetrack betting’, Management Science, 27(12), pp. 1435–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, D. and Vaughan Williams, L. (2005) ‘Forecasting Outcomes in Spread Betting Markets: Can Bettors Use “Quarbs” to Beat the Book?’, Journal of Forecasting, forthcomingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, H. S. (1993) ‘Measuring the Incidence of Insider Trading in a Market for State-Contingent Claims’, Economic Journal, 103, pp. 1141–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuckwell, R. (1983) ‘The Thoroughbred Gambling Market: Efficiency, Equity and Related Issues’, Australian Economic Papers, 22, pp. 106–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan Williams, L. (1999) ‘Information Efficiency in Betting Markets’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 51(1), pp. 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan Williams, L.(2000) ‘Index Investment Markets and Information Efficiency’, Global Business and Economics Review – Anthology 2000, pp. 24–9Google Scholar
Vaughan Williams, L.(2001) ‘Can Bettors Win? A Perspective on the Economics of Betting’, World Economics, 2(1), pp. 31–48Google Scholar
Vaughan Williams, L. and Paton, D. (1997) ‘Why is there a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets?’, Economic Journal, 107(440), pp. 150–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. (1965) ‘Utility Analysis and Group Behaviour: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Political Economy, 73(1), pp. 18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×