The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining the Favorite–Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?
Abstract
The favorite–long shot bias describes the long-standing empirical regularity that betting odds provide biased estimates of the probability of a horse winning: long shots are overbet whereas favorites are underbet. Neoclassical explanations of this phenomenon focus on rational gamblers who overbet long shots because of risk-love. The competing behavioral explanations emphasize the role of misperceptions of probabilities. We provide novel empirical tests that can discriminate between these competing theories by assessing whether the models that explain gamblers’ choices in one part of their choice set (betting to win) can also rationalize decisions over a wider choice set, including compound bets in the exacta, quinella, or trifecta pools. Using a new, large-scale data set ideally suited to implement these tests, we find evidence in favor of the view that misperceptions of probability drive the favorite–long shot bias, as suggested by prospect theory.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Why are Gambling Markets Organised so Differently from Financial Markets?
Levitt, S. D. (2004) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00207.x · Cited by 377
Interpreting the predictions of prediction markets
Manski, C. F. (2006) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.004 · Cited by 330
Prices of State Contingent Claims with Insider Traders, and the Favourite-Longshot Bias
Shin, H. S. (1992) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234526 · Cited by 182
Cited by
The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices
Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O'Donoghue, T., & Teitelbaum, J. C. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.6.2499 · Cited by 348
Are betting markets efficient? Evidence from European Football Championships
Direr, A. (2013) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.602010 · Cited by 25
Are betting returns a useful measure of accuracy in (sports) forecasting?
Wunderlich, F., & Memmert, D. (2020) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.08.009 · Cited by 18
Are Sports Bettors Biased toward Longshots, Favorites, or Both? A Literature Review
Newall, P. W. S., & Cortis, D. (2021) · Risks · doi:10.3390/risks9010022 · Cited by 14
Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample
Chapman, J., Snowberg, E., Wang, S. W., & Camerer, C. (2025) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdae093 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Snowberg, E., & Wolfers, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Political Economy
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 723-746
- ISSN
- 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-534X
- OpenAlex
- W3123039092
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining the Favorite–Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/655844
- The paper
- Snowberg, E., & Wolfers, J. (2010). Explaining the Favorite–Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions? Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/655844
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.