No abstract

No abstract

A naturalistic study was employed to explore a new form of ''basic anchoring.'' In particular, we examined the degree to which decision makers in a financial market, the horserace betting market, anchored their probability judgments excessively on a factor present in the environment at the time the judgments were made and which was relevant and informative to the judgment: the advantage afforded by a horse's barrier-position (BP). The results demonstrated that under certain conditions bettors anchored excessively on BP information revealed at previous race meetings, but not on the most recent race outcomes. In fact, bettors appeared to use the most recent race outcomes appropriately when forming probability estimates; but only when the results were in line with, what were likely to be, their expectations of BP advantage. Bettors with varying levels of expertise were shown to be subject to excessive anchoring, although greater expertise was generally associated with less excessive anchoring. The paper concludes that the manner and degree of basic anchoring in real-world environments is complex.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIn this paper, we test two different kinds of bias; the favorite-longshot/favorite-underdog and the home team bias, and distinguish between the two, using a distinctive feature of the Australian Football League (AFL), that many games are played on neutral grounds. This is the first empirical study, to the best of our knowledge, to make a clear distinction between the two types of bias. We conduct our tests by subjecting 2001-2004 data for the AFL to detailed scrutiny, using standard econometric weak-form efficiency models of point spread and fixed odds betting markets. Where the results suggest the presence of a bias, we test potential profitability via betting simulation. We are able to reject the existence of any significant pure favorite-longshot/favorite-underdog bias in either market, and to demonstrate the existence of a significant bias in favor of teams with an apparent home ground advantage in games played outside Victoria in the point spread market and in the fixed odds market

No abstract