Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL
Data on betting percentages, both in terms of number of bets and actual money wagered, is still difficult to find. Sports Action Network, in their premium access service, does provide this data in terms of both number of bets and money bet. For the2020 NFL season, it was found that the balanced bo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of prediction markets 2021-11, Vol.15 (3) |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | Journal of prediction markets |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Paul, Rodney Weinbach, Andrew |
| description | Data on betting percentages, both in terms of number of bets and actual money wagered, is still difficult to find. Sports Action Network, in their premium access service, does provide this data in terms of both number of bets and money bet. For the2020 NFL season, it was found that the balanced book could be rejected as bettors were shown to prefer road favorites, big favorites, and the over at the highest totals. Allowing this imbalance in the sides market appeared profitable for the book as the underdog won more often than implied by efficiency, while totals were evenly split. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5750/jpm.v15i3.1961 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2659628939</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2659628939</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c999-f8f00cb2b2d4537408fe3f1dc0d5afc7ee0c00e85bf36045231256883d41666a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM9KAzEYxIMoWKpXzwHPu-bPJrs52mKtUFRKBW8hm000td2sybbQm-_gG_okpq14-oZhmG_4AXCFUc5Khm6W3TrfYuZojgXHJ2CAk5vxkr-e_muGz8FljK5GqCBClAUagJe52broete-wf7dwJFaqVabBo68_4DTXeeTG12EP1_fcGT63gf4HIw1waRYhKpt4NzEzaqP0LWHisfJ7AKcWbWK5vLvDsFicrcYT7PZ0_3D-HaWaSFEZiuLkK5JTZqC0TSnsoZa3GjUMGV1aQzSCJmK1ZZyVDBCMWG8qmhTYM65okNwfaztgv_cmNjLpd-ENn2UhDPBSSWoSKn8mNLBx5i2yy64tQo7iZHcw5MJnjzAk3t49Bdq2WM1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2659628939</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Paul, Rodney ; Weinbach, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Paul, Rodney ; Weinbach, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>Data on betting percentages, both in terms of number of bets and actual money wagered, is still difficult to find. Sports Action Network, in their premium access service, does provide this data in terms of both number of bets and money bet. For the2020 NFL season, it was found that the balanced book could be rejected as bettors were shown to prefer road favorites, big favorites, and the over at the highest totals. Allowing this imbalance in the sides market appeared profitable for the book as the underdog won more often than implied by efficiency, while totals were evenly split.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1750-6751</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1750-676X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5750/jpm.v15i3.1961</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Buckingham: The University of Buckingham Press</publisher><subject>Bias ; College football ; Efficiency ; Gambling ; Hypotheses ; Literature reviews ; Prediction markets ; Prices ; Profit maximization ; Profits</subject><ispartof>Journal of prediction markets, 2021-11, Vol.15 (3)</ispartof><rights>Copyright The University of Buckingham Press Nov 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paul, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinbach, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL</title><title>Journal of prediction markets</title><description>Data on betting percentages, both in terms of number of bets and actual money wagered, is still difficult to find. Sports Action Network, in their premium access service, does provide this data in terms of both number of bets and money bet. For the2020 NFL season, it was found that the balanced book could be rejected as bettors were shown to prefer road favorites, big favorites, and the over at the highest totals. Allowing this imbalance in the sides market appeared profitable for the book as the underdog won more often than implied by efficiency, while totals were evenly split.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>College football</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Gambling</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Prediction markets</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Profit maximization</subject><subject>Profits</subject><issn>1750-6751</issn><issn>1750-676X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kM9KAzEYxIMoWKpXzwHPu-bPJrs52mKtUFRKBW8hm000td2sybbQm-_gG_okpq14-oZhmG_4AXCFUc5Khm6W3TrfYuZojgXHJ2CAk5vxkr-e_muGz8FljK5GqCBClAUagJe52broete-wf7dwJFaqVabBo68_4DTXeeTG12EP1_fcGT63gf4HIw1waRYhKpt4NzEzaqP0LWHisfJ7AKcWbWK5vLvDsFicrcYT7PZ0_3D-HaWaSFEZiuLkK5JTZqC0TSnsoZa3GjUMGV1aQzSCJmK1ZZyVDBCMWG8qmhTYM65okNwfaztgv_cmNjLpd-ENn2UhDPBSSWoSKn8mNLBx5i2yy64tQo7iZHcw5MJnjzAk3t49Bdq2WM1</recordid><startdate>20211116</startdate><enddate>20211116</enddate><creator>Paul, Rodney</creator><creator>Weinbach, Andrew</creator><general>The University of Buckingham Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211116</creationdate><title>Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL</title><author>Paul, Rodney ; Weinbach, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c999-f8f00cb2b2d4537408fe3f1dc0d5afc7ee0c00e85bf36045231256883d41666a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>College football</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Gambling</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Prediction markets</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Profit maximization</topic><topic>Profits</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paul, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinbach, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of prediction markets</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paul, Rodney</au><au>Weinbach, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL</atitle><jtitle>Journal of prediction markets</jtitle><date>2021-11-16</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>3</issue><issn>1750-6751</issn><eissn>1750-676X</eissn><abstract>Data on betting percentages, both in terms of number of bets and actual money wagered, is still difficult to find. Sports Action Network, in their premium access service, does provide this data in terms of both number of bets and money bet. For the2020 NFL season, it was found that the balanced book could be rejected as bettors were shown to prefer road favorites, big favorites, and the over at the highest totals. Allowing this imbalance in the sides market appeared profitable for the book as the underdog won more often than implied by efficiency, while totals were evenly split.</abstract><cop>Buckingham</cop><pub>The University of Buckingham Press</pub><doi>10.5750/jpm.v15i3.1961</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1750-6751 |
| ispartof | Journal of prediction markets, 2021-11, Vol.15 (3) |
| issn | 1750-6751 1750-676X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2659628939 |
| source | Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Bias College football Efficiency Gambling Hypotheses Literature reviews Prediction markets Prices Profit maximization Profits |
| title | Revisiting the Balanced Book Hypothesis – Bettor Preferences and Results in the NFL |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T20%3A43%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revisiting%20the%20Balanced%20Book%20Hypothesis%20%E2%80%93%20Bettor%20Preferences%20and%20Results%20in%20the%20NFL&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20prediction%20markets&rft.au=Paul,%20Rodney&rft.date=2021-11-16&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.issn=1750-6751&rft.eissn=1750-676X&rft_id=info:doi/10.5750/jpm.v15i3.1961&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2659628939%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2659628939&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |