MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pari-Mutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries Revisited

2023· article· en· W4388115504 on OpenAlex
William T. Ziemba

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Financial Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrageLotteryHedge fundEconomicsFinancial economicsFinancial marketHedgeInvestment (military)MicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This survey discusses the state of the art in research in racetrack and lottery investment markets. Market efficiency and the pricing of various wagers are studied along with new developments since the Thaler & Ziemba (1988) review. The weak form inefficient market pricing approach using stochastic programming optimization models changed racetrack betting from handicapping to a financial market allowing professional syndicates to operate as hedge funds. Topics discussed include arbitrage and risk arbitrage, syndicates, betting exchange rebates, behavioral biases, and fundamental and mispricing information in racetrack and lottery markets. Similar models can be used to successfully trade stock market anomalies. Supplemental Materials are included online.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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