If you like this work, you'd also like coauthors @n_grasley and Mariana Guido. Keep an eye out for their JMPs. And people should apply to this RFP. Let's keep doing research so that policymakers can make informed decisions about how to regulate sports betting! 12/12

Here's the paper link. There are LOTS more findings (e.g., evidence on the elasticity of demand!). And we tried to include practical insights for regulators wherever we could. https://t.co/QLdTNFLKu6 11/12

A different option is to try to eliminate bias through "nudges" embedded into sports betting platforms. We evaluated two prominent nudges -- historical transparency and voluntary wager limits. Disappointingly, they didn't do much to eliminate bias. 10/12

One option is to regulate product characteristics that are associated with bias. We found that parlay bettors were MUCH more overoptimistic than everyone else. That's a good reason to single out this kind of wager for consumer protection interventions. 9/12

Our estimates suggest current taxes are too low. But if we found a smart way to target the most biased consumers, that would be even better than an optimal uniform tax. How can we do that? 8/12

We see a lot of heterogeneity. Some people are severely overoptimistic; others look unbiased. So there's a tradeoff if we want to use instruments like taxes to restrict consumption. High taxes reduce betting for biased people (good!) but harm unbiased bettors (bad!). 7/12

We also studied self-control problems. Some people want to stop, but just can't resist. We used methods from behavioral econ to measure self-control problems. We found that they exist, but they're less important than overoptimism as a driver of betting. 6/12

The average participant was very overoptimistic: they predicted they'd break even, but they actually lost 7.5 cents on the dollar. Put another way: betting is financially costly, but people are not internalizing the costs. That's why consumer protection can help. 5/12

The first bias we studied was overoptimism. Do sports bettors understand how much money they're losing? We asked people to predict the financial returns to their own betting, and compared those predictions to what actually happened. 4/12

So that's why we wanted to study biases among high-volume sports bettors. To do it, we ran an online experiment where we linked surveys to administrative data from participants' sports betting accounts. More details in the link at end. But I'll summarize what we found. 3/12

Optimal regulation depends on the psychology of betting. In general we don't want to stop people from consuming products they like. But some have argued that sports bettors have biases that cause them to bet too much. If that's right, smart regulations can help. 2/12

https://t.co/z1b4O2ejxT I'm not super active on social media, but I came across this exciting RFP from @Arnold_Ventures and had to jump in. Sports betting is one of America's fastest-growing industries. It was also the subject of my JMP. How should we regulate sports betting?

1 - My #JMP studies how universities respond to changing student demand for courses and skills. I use novel data to peek inside the black box of #highered supply. TLDR: Universities respond inelastically, both in course quantity and content #EconTwitter https://t.co/fIuz3vOh9N

📈Job market paper time📉 I’m excited to finally share my job market paper! My JMP studies whether and why policy choices are stubbornly persistent. For example, Oregon has an income tax, but Washington doesn’t—seemingly because of nearly century-old choices. Is this typical?

This is helpful, thanks!

Does anyone know of any measures of partisan sorting by occupation/industry? I.e, how much more likely are liberals to work with other liberals? I know Figure 7 from Bonica (2014) but am wondering if there's anything that puts a number on it + covers more occupations.

Anyone know of a brief intro to social choice theory, for a person interested in the political philosophy but with limited econ/math background? Goal is not to understand formal results, but the intuition behind problems with utility aggregation, Arrow's Theorem, etc.

Does My Son Know You? https://t.co/37lKB9pGgJ via @ringer

Stanford economist Guido Imbens discusses his work, which made it possible to find cause and effect in real-world randomness, with kids Sylvia (10), Andrew (15) and Carleton (17). Can you win a #NobelPrize in parenting?

In #APSRFirstView, James Fishkin, Alice Siu, @LarryDiamond, & Norman Bradburn examine whether deliberation can reduce affective polarization. #APSR #polisciresearch https://t.co/XMPnSfrc4B