The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Betting Market Efficiency in the Presence of Unfamiliar Shocks: The Case of Ghost Games During the COVID-19 Pandemic
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“while it did not occur for the lower second division league (Fischer & Haucap, 2020).”
From Home advantage and mispricing in indoor sports’ ghost games: the case of European basketball (2023) · cites this paper as Fischer & Haucap, 2020
In the citing paper
“a decrease of the home advantage following an increase in ghost games was documented in the first division of German soccer”
From Home advantage and mispricing in indoor sports’ ghost games: the case of European basketball (2023) · cites this paper as Fischer & Haucap, 2020
In the citing paper
“This evidence suggests that the impact of the absence of fans in the arenas on the home advantage persists over time and it is not temporary as found in outdoor sports as soccer (Fischer & Haucap, 2020).”
From Home advantage and mispricing in indoor sports’ ghost games: the case of European basketball (2023) · cites this paper as Fischer & Haucap, 2020
In the citing paper
“This result is in contrast with what is found in soccer where such adjustment did not happen at first, hence creating mispricing on the market, as found by Fischer and Haucap (2020) for the German soccer league.”
From Home advantage and mispricing in indoor sports’ ghost games: the case of European basketball (2023) · cites this paper as Fischer and Haucap (2020)
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
Optimal Betting Odds Against Insider Traders
Shin, H. S. (1991) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234434 · Cited by 166 · cited 1×
“Potential reasons for the longshot bias can be risk-hedging pricing strategies of betting providers against insider trading (Cain et al. 2003, Shin 1991, 1992, 1993), bettors’ overconfidence or image effects (Direr 2011, Golec & Tamarkin 1995, Williams 1999), bettors’ willingness to especially make…”
Informational Efficiency and Behaviour Within In-Play Prediction Markets
Angelini, G., De Angelis, L., & Singleton, C. (2020) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3505287 · Cited by 23 · cited 11×
“Still, literature on in-game betting (Angelini et al. 2019, Choi & Hui 2014, Croxson & Reade 2014, Gil & Levitt 2007) finds an adaption process to in-game exogenous shocks such as goals over time which we hardly observe14.”
Influential
Cited by
Home advantage and mispricing in indoor sports’ ghost games: the case of European basketball
De Angelis, L., & Reade, J. J. (2023) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04950-7 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischer, K., & Haucap, J.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 1556-5068
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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.
