Betting strategies based on the presence of home-underdog bias in the NFL have been shown to produce returns in excess of those predicted by market efficiency in some situations. Dare and Dennis (2011) attribute this bias to bettors underestimating the scoring ability of home underdogs. Using a more recent sample of data, we find contradictory results. We challenge the assumptions of the Dare and Dennis (2011) model and use detailed betting data to offer an alternative rationale for the homeunderdog bias. We illustrate that bettors have clear and predictable tendencies for betting on the best teams, and sports books do not appear to be operating as suggested by the balanced-book hypothesis.
CainM., LawD., & PeelD. (2000). Testing for statistical and market efficiency when forecast errors are non-normal: The NFL betting market revisited.The Journal of Forecasting, 19, 575–586.
2.
DareW., & DennisS. (2011). A test for bias of inherent characteristics in betting markets.Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 660–665.
3.
DareW., & HollandS. (2004). Efficiency in the NFL betting market: Modifying and consolidating research methods.Applied Economics, 36, 9–15.
4.
DareW. & McDonaldS. (1996). A generalized model for testing the home and favorite team advantage in point spread markets.Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 295–318.
5.
GandarJ. M., ZuberR. A., JohnsonR. S., & DareW. (2002). Re-examining the betting market on Major League Baseball games: Is there a reverse favorite-longshot bias?Applied Economics, 34, 1309–1317.
6.
GolicJ., & TomarkinM. (1991). The degree of inefficiency in the football betting markets.Journal of Financial Economics, 30, 321–330.
7.
GriffithR. M. (1949). Odds adjustments by American horse race bettors.American Journal of Psychology, 62, 290–294. Reprinted in Hausch D. B., et al. (1994). Efficiency of racetrack betting markets. New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
HumphreysB., PaulR. & WeinbachA. (2010). Consumption benefits and gambling: Evidence from the NCAA basketball betting market. University of Alberta Department of Economics Working Paper No. 2010–07.
9.
IoannidisC., & PeelD. (2005). Testing for market efficiency in gambling markets when the errors are non-normal and heteroskedastic: An application of the wild bootstrap.Economics Letters, 87, 221–226.
10.
McGlothlinW. H. (1956). Stability of choices among uncertain alternatives.American Journal of Psychology, 69, 604-615. Reprinted in Hausch, et al., 1994.
11.
LevittS. (2004). Why are gambling markets organized so differently from financial markets?The Economic Journal, 114, 223–46.
12.
PaulR., & WeinbachA. (2002). Market inefficiency and a profitable betting rule: Evidence from totals on professional football.Journal of Sports Economics 3, 256–263.
13.
PaulR., & WeinbachA. (2008). Does sportsbook.com set point spreads to maximize profits? Tests of the Levitt Model of sports book behavior.Journal of Prediction Markets, 1, 209–218.
14.
PaulR., & WeinbachA. (2011). Bettor biases and price setting by sports books in the NFL: Further tests of the Levitt Hypothesis of sports book behavior.Applied Economics Letters, 18, 193–197.
15.
StiglerG., & BeckerG. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum.The American Economic Review, 67, 76–90.
16.
WoodlandL. M., & WoodlandB. M. (1994). Market efficiency and the favorite-longshot bias: The baseball betting market.Journal of Finance, 49, 269–280.
17.
WoodlandL. M., & WoodlandB. M. (2001). Market efficiency and profitable wagering in the National Hockey League: Can bettors score on longshots?Southern Economic Journal, 67, 983–995.
18.
WoodlandB., & WoodlandL. (2003). The reverse favourite-longshot bias and market efficiency in Major League Baseball: An update.Bulletin of Economic Research, 55, 113–124.
19.
ZuberR., GandarJ., & BowersB. (1985). Beating the spread: Testing the efficiency of the gambling market for National Football League games.Journal of Political Economy, 93, 800–806.
