Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Market efficiency and NCAA college basketball gambling

Paul, Rodney, Weinbach, Andrew·2005·Journal of Economics and Finance
DOI 10.1007/bf02761584
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02761584

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Brown, W.O., and R.D. Sauer. 1993. “Does the Basketball Market Believe in the Hot Hand? Comment.”American Economic Review 83:1377–1386.
  2. Camerer, C. 1989. “Does the Basketball Market Believe in the Hot Hand?.”American Economic Review 79:1257–1261.
  3. Even, W.E., and N.R. Noble. 1992. “Testing Efficiency in Gambling Markets.”Applied Economics 24:85–88. · DOI
  4. Gandar, J., R. Zuber, and R.S. Johnson. 2004. “A Reexamination of the Efficiency of the Betting Market on National Hockey League Games.”Journal of Sports Economics. 5:152–168. · DOI
  5. Gandar, J., R. Zuber, R.S. Johnson, and W. Dare. 2002. “Re-examining the Betting Market on Major League Baseball Games: Is There a Reverse Favorite-Longshot Bias?.”Applied Economics 34:1309–1317. · DOI
  6. Golec, J., and M. Tamarkin. 1998. “Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track.”Journal of Political Economy 106:205–225. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Paul, R.J., and A.P. Weinbach. 2002. “Market Efficiency and a Profitable Betting Rule: Evidence from Totals on Professional Football.”Journal of Sports Economics 3:256–263. · DOI
  8. Paul, R.J., A.P. Weinbach, and C.J. Weinbach. 2003. “Fair Bets and Profitability in College Football Gambling.”Journal of Economics and Finance 27:236–242. · DOI
  9. Sauer, R.D., Vic Brajer, Stephen P. Ferris, and M.W. Marr. 1988. “Hold Your Bets: Another Look at the Efficiency of the Betting Market for NFL Games.”Journal of Political Economy 96:206–213. · DOI
  10. Tryfos, P., S. Casey, S. Cook, G. Leger, and B. Plylypiak. 1984. “The Profitability of Wagering on NFL Games.”Management Science 30:123–132. · DOI
  11. Vergin, R.C., and M. Scriabin. 1978. “Winning Strategies for Wagering on National Football League Games.”Management Science 24:809–818. · DOI
  12. Woodland, L.M., and B.M. Woodland. 1994. “Market Efficiency and the Favorite-Longshot Bias: The Baseball Betting Market.”Journal of Finance 49:269–280. · DOI
  13. Woodland, L.M., and B.M. Woodland. 2001. “Market Efficiency and Profitable Wagering in the National Hockey League: Can Bettors Score on Longshots?.”Southern Economic Journal 67:983–995. · DOI

Cited by

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Paul, R., & Weinbach, A.
Venue
Journal of Economics and Finance
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-09
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
403-408
ISSN
  • 1055-0925
  • 1938-9744
DOI
10.1007/bf02761584
Cited by
18
References
3
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.