Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Economics and Finance
Erschienen in: Journal of Economics and Finance 4/2019

29.05.2019

Betting with house money: reverse line movement based strategies in college football totals markets

verfasst von: James Francisco, Evan Moore

Erschienen in: Journal of Economics and Finance | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This article tests the efficient market hypothesis and the profitability of a simple betting strategies in NCAA college football. We examine all games that have a total, or over/under, from September 2005 through January 2016. We investigate whether betting based on “reverse line movement” in an effort to follow the actions of “sharps,” or professional bettors, is profitable over the time period. We find that, in general, following reverse line movement is not a profitable strategy with regard to the totals markets in college football.
Vorheriger Artikel Celebrity attraction in the minors: the case of Tim Tebow
Nächster Artikel Labor market freedom and geographic differentials in the percentage unemployment rate in the U.S.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Some sites report only the percentage of bets placed, or are ambiguous. Sports Insights, LLC, the source of our data, makes it very clear that they provide the percentage of money wagered, which is what we use in this paper. See, e.g. “. . . Our Sportsbook Insider software now offers both betting ticket percentages and the percentage of actual dollars being waged on the spread, moneyline and over/under for each game.” https://​www.​sportsinsights.​com/​company/​frequently-asked-questions-faq/​#bettingpercentag​esource
 
2
All opening and closing totals on offer reported in this paper are the values bettors could get at the standard “natural” odds (−110). Other values may be available for better or worse odds, but the norm in college football (as opposed to other sports, including professional football) is to adjust to market activity via changes in the line, as opposed to “juicing” (i.e. changing the payout from −110 to another figure).
 
3
A cursory look at these results suggests it may be profitable to bet against RLM for the 16–20% on under. The fair bet and nonrandom test statistics have the same absolute values, as expected, and the log-likelihood no profit test statistic is 1.109 and the Z-test profitability statistic is 1.012 in this case. Neither test statistic indicates rejection of the null of no profits at a statistical significance of 10%.
 
4
We tested whether it would be profitable to bet against RLM for the month of January; the log-likelihood no profit test statistic is 2.363 and the Z-test profitability statistic is 1.580 in this case. Neither test statistic indicates statistical significance at the 10% level; we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no profits.
 
5
Table 9, in the appendix, provides summary statistics including the mean, standard deviation, median, and interquartile for the over percentage at each line change provided in Table 8.
 
6
We also tested whether it would be profitable to bet against RLM for line changes of 2, 0.5, −2.5, −5.5, and − 6; only the line change of −6 indicated statistical significance with a log-likelihood no profit test statistic of 3.184 (10% level) and a Z-test profitability statistic of 2.143 (5% level). As an interesting aside, similar testing of betting against RLM conducted on pooling the 11 games with a line decrease of 8.5 points or more finds statistical significance with a log-likelihood no profit test statistic of 4.176 (5% level) and a Z-test profitability statistic of 2.531 (5% level).
 
Literatur
Badarinathi R, Kochman L (1996) Football betting and the efficient market hypothesis. Am Econ 40(2):52–65
Coleman BJ (2017) Team travel effects and the college football betting market. J Sports Econ 18(4):388–425CrossRef
Even WE, Noble NR (1992) Testing efficiency in gambling markets. Appl Econ 24:85–88CrossRef
Francisco J, Moore E (2018) A comment on Paul and Weinbach's (2005) bettor preferences and efficient markets in totals markets. J Econ Financ 42(4):836–840CrossRef
Gandar J, Zuber R, O’Brien T, Russo B (1988) Testing rationality in the point spread betting market. J Financ 43:995–1007CrossRef
Kuester DD, Sanders S (2011) Regional information and market efficiency: the case of spread betting in United States college football. J Econ Financ (25):1. 116–1. 122
Levitt S (2004) Why are gambling markets organized so differently from financial markets? Econ J 114(April):223–246CrossRef
Paul RJ, Weinbach AP (2005) Bettor Preferenes and market efficiency in football totals markets. J Econ Financ 29(3):409–415CrossRef
Paul RJ, Weinbach AP (2011) NFL bettor biases and Price setting: further tests of the Levitt hypothesis of sportsbook behavior. Appl Econ Lett 18:193–197CrossRef
Salaga S, Tainsky S (2015) Betting lines and college football television ratings. Econ Lett 132(C):112–116CrossRef
Sinkey M, Logan TD (2014) Does the hot hand drive the market? Evidence from college football betting markets. East Econ J 40(4):583–603CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Betting with house money: reverse line movement based strategies in college football totals markets
verfasst von
James Francisco
Evan Moore
Publikationsdatum
29.05.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Economics and Finance / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1055-0925
Elektronische ISSN: 1938-9744
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-019-09479-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Economics and Finance 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Celebrity attraction in the minors: the case of Tim Tebow

OriginalPaper

Estimating volatility transmission between oil prices and the US Dollar exchange rate under structural breaks

ReviewPaper

Determinants of foreign portfolio investment in emerging markets: evidence from Saudi stock market

OriginalPaper

On the effects of policy uncertainty on stock prices

OriginalPaper

Governance structure and performance of private family firms

OriginalPaper

Labor market freedom and geographic differentials in the percentage unemployment rate in the U.S.