External validity of prospect theory: The evidence from soccer betting

KRČÁL, Ondřej, Michal KVASNIČKA and Rostislav STANĚK. External validity of prospect theory: The evidence from soccer betting. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2016, vol. 65, No 5, p. 121-127. ISSN 2214-8043. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.07.005.

Basic information

• Original name: External validity of prospect theory: The evidence from soccer betting
• Authors: KRČÁL, Ondřej (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution), Michal KVASNIČKA (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution) and Rostislav STANĚK (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution).
• Edition: Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 2016, 2214-8043.

Other information

• Original language: English
• Type of outcome: Article in a journal
• Field of Study: 50200 5.2 Economics and Business
• Country of publisher: United States of America
• Confidentiality degree: is not subject to a state or trade secret
• WWW: URL
• Impact factor: Impact factor: 0.809
• RIV identification code: RIV/00216224:14560/16:00091978
• Organization unit: Faculty of Economics and Administration
• Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.07.005
• UT WoS: 000390511900014
• Keywords in English: Cumulative prospect theory; Betting market; Probability weighting; Loss aversion
• Tags: International impact, Reviewed

Abstract

This paper tests whether the prospect theory parameters estimated from laboratory experiments correspond to estimates from real-life betting markets. Using Czech soccer betting data, we estimate the functional forms of the value and probability weighting functions commonly used for the experimental validation of prospect theory. In line with the experimental evidence, we find that bettors are risk averse in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses and tend to overweight small probabilities and underweight medium and large probabilities. On the other hand, our findings suggest that bettors do not exhibit loss aversion. This might be at least partly explained by recent experimental evidence suggesting that loss aversion is weaker or absent if the decision-makers are experienced, if they face similar choices repeatedly, and if the decisions are made in a context where offers are usually accepted.