MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1917431900 · doi:10.5750/jgbe.v4i2.556

APPLICATIONS OF AN SPRT-LIKE TEST IN PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING

2013· article· en· W1917431900 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Porth, EARL S. ROSENBLOOM

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Gambling Business and Economics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploitHedge fundEconomicsArbitrageEconometricsTest (biology)HedgeFinancial economicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceFinanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pari-mutuel wagering functions as a very simple financial market, and has therefore been important in studying market efficiency. In this study, an SPRT-like test reveals that probabilities from the win pool corrected for the favourite longshot bias using Asch and Quandt’s regression equation can be used to exploit the exacta pool, and probabilities obtained from the exacta pool can be used to exploit the win pool. These finding differ from previously published studies that maintain that the win pool is largely efficient. Further, these findings mirror statistical arbitrage strategies utilized by hedge funds, where pricing inefficiencies are exploited between related assets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Gambling Business and EconomicsSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207