| Title |
Predicting outcomes: Sports and stocks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, June 1992
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf01014636 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordon Wood |
| Abstract |
Many gamblers and most fans, players, and coaches offer causal explanations for long runs of good or bad performance in sports and financial analysts are quick to offer explanations for the daily performance of the stock market. The records of professional basketball and baseball teams and the Dow Jones daily closing average for a ten year period were evaluated for trends (streaks). The records of teams were also evaluated to assess whether the record against opponents, the home court or home field advantage, and-for baseball teams-the record of the winning and losing pitcher (excluding the current game) predicted the outcome of individual games. Recent performance is, at best, a very weak predictor of current performance and the three best predictors for baseball (pitching, home field, and record against opponent) together accounted for only 1.7% of the variance in the outcomes of individual games. We overestimate our ability to predict. This overconfidence is likely to play a role in maintaining gambling behaviors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 27% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2011.
All research outputs
#2,600,428
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#139
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#647
of 18,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 18,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.