марта 2014 ~ Betting is life

воскресенье, 30 марта 2014 г.

Motivation or Pressure – does the market correctly assess the impact?

By Dan Weston Mar 28, 2014

Ranking points are an integral part of the Tennis world – with players routinely having to defend ranking points accumulated in the previous year, this article examines whether the tennis betting market accurately takes into account the fact that players are defending ranking points in a given event.

A Tennis player’s ranking is assessed on a 52-week rolling year basis with points being removed and added each week, depending on results. Many tennis fans and bettors seem to incorrectly assume that ranking points are assigned to a certain event but this is not the case. A tennis player defends the ranking points they gained on the equivalent week of the previous year, not the actual tournament they were won from. This is important as there are a few occasions throughout the year that tournaments move date from the previous year, and it would be a fallacy to assume the player was defending points from that tournament.

What would be much more reasonable to assume is that the player and their support team will be more than aware that they are defending ranking points in a given week. On that basis, it’s fairly logical to think that the player will give their best efforts when defending ranking points, and there could be a further positive with events which dates have stayed static in the calendar, the player has won previous ranking points due to a love of the conditions or event (for example, Andreas Seppi in Eastbourne or Robin Haase in Kitzbuhel – or any event held at altitude).

However, a negative aspect of defending ranking points is that players with less mental strength than others may struggle under the pressure of defending ranking points so it’s definitely not a given that a player will thrive in this circumstance.

Notable drops in ranking

A couple of examples of players’ rankings falling after failing to defend ranking points are:-

In October 2012, Jerzy Janowicz shocked the Tennis world after reaching the final of the Paris Masters 1000 event as a 69th ranked qualifier. The same event was held the same week in 2013 and Rafael Nadal eliminated him in the round of 16, causing his ranking to drop from 14 to 21.

Filippo Volandri reached the final of the Sao Paulo event in February 2012, losing in three sets to Nicolas Almagro. The same event was held the same week in 2013 and the Italian – after two underdog wins over Daniel Gimeno-Traver and Thomaz Bellucci – lost as a 1.48 favourite to Martin Alund in the quarter-finals. The effect of this on his ranking was profound – it dropped from 88 to 113. Whilst this may sound fairly inconsequential, it would mean that he would now not gain direct entry for many ATP events that he would have done if he had defended his ranking points successfully.

Defending the points

There were 128 finalists in ATP events in 2012 and 32 managed to reach at least the final again (25.0%). Novak Djokovic (6), David Ferrer (5) and Rafael Nadal (4) led the way in this area. In fact, when you include Andy Murray (3) and Roger Federer (2), this quintet comprised 20 of the 32 successful players.

The following table illustrates the results of players defending winner or runner-up ranking points in the ATP in 2013. For clarity, only matches with at least one set completed were sampled, and all prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices. A 100 level stake hypothetical bet was applied to all players defending these ranking points in the sample.

<1.20

1.20-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.99

3.00-5.99

6.00+

Favourite

Underdog

Overall

Matches

128

273

322

Wins

121

226

245

Win %

94.53

78.35

60.42

56.00

19.05

33.33

82.78

38.78

76.09

P/L

235

291

-19

843

-667

361

507

537

1044

ROI

1.84

3.00

-0.40

33.72

-31.76

120.33

1.86

10.96

3.24

We can see from the statistics above that overall there was a small positive return on investment backing players when defending finalist ranking points in their matches a year later. 3.24% is a very solid figure and this shows that the market doesn’t fully take into account the effects of defending ranking points enough.

It’s also worth noting that whilst the 1.84% return on investment for players priced below 1.20 doesn’t appear anything out of the ordinary, this is a very impressive figure for backing players at these short odds, with many matches sampled having players priced under 1.10.

What can also be seen from the table is that underdogs, from a smaller sample, had much better success than favourites, particularly in the 2.00-2.99 odds range.

Whilst it’s too small a sample to draw many conclusions from, it would appear fairly logical that players priced 2.00-2.99 would do well – they are considered to only be slightly worse than their opponent on that given day, and have possibly greater motivation than that opponent. Furthermore, it is likely they would have less expectation and pressure than if they were favourite.

Assessing whether a player is defending ranking points is something that bettors should consider when betting on a tennis match, and should be part of a balanced betting strategy.

Dan Weston is a freelance tennis writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also produces his own tennis rating system, and trading analysis, which can be found at www.tennisratings.co.uk.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

четверг, 27 марта 2014 г.

How many majors will Tiger Woods win in 2014?

By Michael Gales Mar 26, 2014

With the 2014 golf major season about to start, Pinnacle Sports are offering odds on how many majors Tiger Woods will win this season? With a new injury, poor form and lack of recent major success, are Woods’ chances of winning a major in 2014 diminishing?

Is time running out for Tiger Woods to win another major?

While Tiger Woods – at the time of writing – is World No 1, you might want to think again before betting on the man to win a major in 2014, as there are a number of signs that the American may be in decline.

Woods is the second most decorated major winner in golf history with 14 titles to his name – Masters 4, U.S Open 3, Open Championship 3, PGA Championship 4 – but has failed to win in his last 18 attempts.

Personal matters were blamed for his lack of form at the end of 2009 and the following season, however it is now his age and more importantly injuries, which are the cause for concern. The bulging disc that forced Woods to withdraw during the final round of this year’s Honda Classic and which kept him out of the Arnold Palmer Invitational is apparently inoperable.

Despite going under the knife four times on his knee, back trouble could prove more problematic, Woods stated recently ” With the back, it’s a totally different deal. There are certain movements you just can’t do… It affects downswing, and follow through.”

If his fitness does hold up, his recent major form is still a cause for concern. Despite experts talking of Woods returning to his former glories as he eased to victories in high-quality fields at the WGC Cadillac Championship, the WGC Bridgestone Invitational and The Players in 2013, he failed in the majors.

Interestingly Woods has not broken 70 on the weekend of any major since the 2011 Masters, which is a worrying stat for any bettors thinking of backing him to win. In 2013 he endured his worst major weekend at the US Open with rounds of 76-74, and shot a final round of 74 in the hunt for the victory at the British Open.

In his 18 majors since his private life was exposed in 2009, Woods has finished inside the top five in six majors. It has been 70 months since his last major win – the longest drought of his career. Bettors must decide if this drought is weighing heavy on his mind?

What do the statistics suggest?

On average Woods has won a major every 5 attempts, and finishes inside the top five once every 2.25 tournaments. However his record has change since 2009 – obviously his win ratio is 0, while he finishes in the top five on average every 3 tournaments.

Odds of 1.446* are available for Woods’ major drought to continue – in 19 seasons of major golf, he has finished winless in 10 (52%) – while he can be backed at 3.560* to end his worst run without a major win and claim a title in 2014.

Backing Woods to complete a major double for the fourth time in his career is available at 12.500*, while a second hat-trick of majors is at 46.550* – Woods is only the second man to ever record three major wins in the same year (2000).

Aside from 2009, this has been the worst start to a season in his career. He finished 25th at the WGC Doral where he scored a closing 78 – his worst final round in 18 seasons as a professional.

It is interesting to see the shift in odds for Woods to beat Jack Nicklaus’ 18 major titles. After Woods won his second major at the PGA Championship in 1999, he was at 26.000 and moved to 1.333 after winning four majors in a row in 2000-01, while he has now drifted to 7.000 with a number of major bookmakers. This dramatic shift highlights how the bookmakers believe Woods’ powers could be on the wane.

The challenge Woods faces is evident when you consider no golfer has won five majors after their 38th birthday in 60 years. Ben Hogan was the last to do so, but the standard of golf was nowhere near as good as in the modern era.

Given his ongoing injury battle, and inconsistent form in the majors, is Tiger Woods’ charge towards the Nicklaus’ record slowing? 2014 could prove pivotal for the legacy of Tiger. Depending which side of the argument you sit will determine whether or not you think Woods can win one or more major tournaments in 2014.

Woods’ record in majors before 2009

Major

Events

Wins

Top 5 Finish

Top 10 Finish

Missed Cut

Masters

U.S. Open

British Open

PGA Championship

Overall

Woods’ record in majors since 2009

Major

Events

Wins

Top 5 Finish

Top 10 Finish

Missed Cut

Masters

U.S. Open

British Open

PGA Championship

Overall

Click here to bet on Tiger Woods’ 2014 major props.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

понедельник, 24 марта 2014 г.

How Bayesian analysis can help you predict a sporting outcome

By Mirio Mella Mar 24, 2014

Bettors often seek out new tools to help refine the process of assigning accurate probabilities to the chances of uncertain events happening. This article discusses how Bayesian Analysis – the theory of an 18th Century English Presbyterian Minister named Thomas Bayes – can help sports bettors gauge the outcome of an event.

The birth of Bayesian analysis

Thomas Bayes was born around 1701 in England, and divided his life between studying matters theological and mathematical. It wasn’t until after his death in 1761 that one of his studies “An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances” was submitted to the England’s Royal Society and posthumously acknowledged the significance of his work.

It took, however, until the advent of desktop computers – 200 years later – for Bayes’ work to really be appreciated and gain widespread acceptance. Since then Bayesian analysis has been interpreted and applied in many different spheres such as artificial intelligence. In its simple form Bayesian inference is arguably the most sensible way to use probability and reasoning to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, and that includes gambling.

The approach uses an iterative process of assessing what you know about the probability of a future event, and then testing the impact of new evidence as it becomes available.

The Bayesian analysis Formula

Bayesian analysis can go by many names, ‘Bayesian Inference’, ‘Inverse Probability’, ‘Bayesian Updating’… but at the end of the day it is about a fairly simple formula:

P(A|B)= P(A)*P(B|A)/P(B), or in English:

Probability of A Given B equals Probability of A times Probability of B Given A divided by Probability of B.

If you want to know the probability of A when you know that B is also present (given), you can get the answer by multiplying your prior estimation of A (Probability of A) by how much more likely B is when A is present (i.e. P(B|A)/P(B)).

Using Bayesian analysis to predict the weather

So, suppose you estimate that there is a 30% chance it will rain tomorrow.

And you know that on an average day there is a 50% chance of clouds in the sky.

You also know that the likelihood of clouds is 100% given that rain is 100% (there will always be clouds if there is rain).

You have the following information:

P(A)= Probability of rain= 30%

P(B)= Probability of clouds= 50%

P(B|A)= Probability of clouds given rain= 100%

You wake up in the morning and are blessed with a new piece of information: there are clouds in the sky. You should now perform a Bayesian update on the probability of it raining, Given that there are clouds in the sky.

So, as we recall, P(A|B)=P(A)*P(B|A)/P(B)= chance of rain * chance of clouds given rain/chance of clouds=30%*100%/50%=60%

You can now update your belief about it raining to 60%.

Bayesian analysis and sports betting

Now, let’s transpose this to a sports betting example. Suppose you are interested in a Bayern Munich match, where you believe they have a 50% chance to win outright. You also know that when they win, it rains 11% of the time, compared to the usual likelihood of rain in a Bayern Munich Match of 10%.

Calculation:

P(A)= Probability Bayern Munich wins= 50%

P(B)= Probability of rain in a Bayern Munich match= 10%

P(B|A)= Probability of rain in a football game when Bayern Munich wins= 11%.

Now, if you receive information about the weather, there is no need to scramble to consider how it will affect the odds. You can, as do many professionals in many fields (including sports betting), perform a Bayesian Update.

If there is rain, you know that P(A|B)=P(A)*P(B|A)/P(B)= 50%*11%/10%= 55%.

Notice that P(B|A)/P(B) is the same as asking “how much More likely is B happening, given A?”- In this case, 11/10 (11%/10%).

Once you know that B is a given, your new estimation of A can change accordingly by simply multiplying them- i.e. P(A)*P(B|A)/P(B).

Summary

A bettor’s biggest enemy is often himself, with dogmatic adherence to a particular outcome in the face of changing circumstances, a common mistake. Bayesian analysis breaks this habit by allowing and encouraging the constant testing of new evidence against your position, in essence a positive feedback loop of refining your estimates of likelihood of an event.

It isn’t however a mathematical crystal ball, as with any formulas, the GIGO law applies – garbage in, garbage out – but if you have confidence in your assessment of whatever it is your are testing, then the Bayesian approach can unearth sports betting value. And you’ve got an 18th century priest to thank for it.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

суббота, 22 марта 2014 г.

Do the statistics suggest the tennis elite are in decline?

By Dan Weston Mar 21, 2014

Tennis bettors should be aware of a potential decline amongst elite players this year – with both top seeds failing to win the Australian Open, and a flurry of early exits for high seeds at Indian Wells last week, this article looks at whether there is a serious decline in top 10 players and whether there is a ‘changing of the guard’ at the top of professional Tennis.

High ranked players have dominated high level Grand Slam and Masters/Premier Mandatory events in recent years, and with these tournaments offering the highest levels of prize money and ranking points, it’s natural that top players highlight these events in their calendar as opportunities to advance their careers.

The effect of this is that a high level of motivation is ensured, and generally this means consistent wins for the majority of high ranked players, until they begin to meet each other in the latter stages of the tournament.

However, in the two biggest tournaments so far, January’s Australian Open and the Indian Wells Masters/Premier Mandatory event last week, there have been many more surprise results than average, with shock exits for several highly fancied players early, and especially in the women’s event, surprise finalists in Agnieszka Radwanska and Simona Halep.

When reading tennis articles and comments by bettors and fans on social media, there appears to be somewhat of a kneejerk reaction whereby players are written off as ‘finished’ or ‘in decline’. As always, it’s very important to look at quantifiable information before making such judgments, which may or may not be true.

ATP: Set handicap betting a viable option

The following table illustrates the differences between the 2013 stats and the 2014 season so far for the top 10 in the ATP:

Click the graph to see the full size

We can see from the above table that both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have a decline in their win percentage from 2013 to 2014 – and especially in the case of Nadal, a marked difference in their combined hold/break percentage. He’s held 2.4% less and broken 5.1% less, and this has made his 2014 combined hold/break percentage just 5th best in the ATP.

Interestingly, Roger Federer marginally edges those combined hold/break stats, with a percentage of 120.1. As one of the older players in the top 10, his renaissance wasn’t expected by many, and perhaps has come after the appointment of Stefan Edberg as his coach.

The best improver in the top ten was Tomas Berdych, with the Czech’s service hold an incredible 92.5% in 2014. Not only has he managed to achieve this, he’s also upped his opponent break percentage from 24.5% to 27.5%. If he can continue to do this, he can be a real threat to the upper echelons of the men’s game.

Despite both Nadal and Djokovic (plus Andy Murray) having lower win percentages in 2014 than 2013, the top 10 average has actually increased from 75.1% to 79.3%. On that basis, it would appear from the stats that the overall standard of the top ten has improved, and it has become generally more competitive.

From a betting perspective, this may mean that backing lower ranked members of the top ten against Nadal and Djokovic might be a viable proposition. This could be especially worthwhile on the set handicap – the stats in the table showing that both Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have won their best of three set matches in straight sets less than 50% of the time in 2014.

Finally from an ATP perspective, the table also includes Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. As a long-term member of the top ten, he recently dropped to 11th in the world. His stats have shown a decline over several years now and his return stats – breaking opponents a mere 17.2% so far in 2014 – are very poor indeed. His serving stats are still strong but his modus operandi currently seems to be to win tight sets and matches, much like John Isner.

WTA: Evidence of a decline in top players

As with the ATP, the following table illustrates the differences between 2013 and 2014 for the top 10 in the WTA:

Click the graph to see the full size

It is clear that looking at the stats that the top 10 in the WTA has suffered an overall large decline – much worse than the ATP.

The win percentage of the top 10 has dropped from 75.5% in 2013 to 69.4% in 2014, and the 2-0 straight set win score has reduced from 56.7% to 54.2%.

However, this is fairly logical because – as previous articles have identified – the pool of young talent in the women’s game is much stronger than that in the ATP. The likes of Eugenie Bouchard, Sloane Stephens and Garbine Muguruza are all capable of defeating members of the top ten, and there are few equivalents in the men’s tour.

We can also see that, so far in 2014, there have been big decreases for Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova and Sara Errani when looking at their combined hold/break stats.

Whilst Williams has seen her service numbers remain consistent, her return stats have declined sharply and stand at the 2nd worst in the top ten currently. This may be due to injuries, but at 32, age cannot be discounted.

Sharapova has had to contend with a long term injury absence and it’s natural she may well struggle to hit previous levels initially this season. Her service numbers should be a big worry to her, and the percentage that she wins matches by a 2-0 scoreline has also dropped.

Errani was often considered the weakest member of the top ten despite rankings previously indicating that wasn’t the case, but the stats clearly show she is. With a combined hold/break percentage under 100, she’s not even showing top 20 form right now and at short prices looks one to oppose on hard courts. It will be very interesting to see how she fares on her favoured clay courts in the coming months.

Only two WTA top ten players have better stats this year than last. Na Li, on the back of her Australian Open triumph has rose to number two in the rankings, whilst Jelena Jankovic has shown excellent 2014 form so far. The stats show that both players’ progression are more than justified, with combined hold/break percentages in the top three on tour.

Overall, it’s clear to see that the top ten of both tours have become much more competitive, and the elite players appear to be more beatable now than ever. Particularly in the WTA, we may begin to see some players drop out of the top ten and be replaced by new, younger players as the ‘changing of the guard’ discussed earlier does appears to be taking place in the women’s game currently.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 21 марта 2014 г.

How Pinnacle Sports offers an alternative to laying on Exchanges

Why Pinnacle Sports offers an alternative to laying on Exchanges

By Pinnacle Sports Mar 20, 2014

Pinnacle Sports have a reputation for offering the best odds even when compared to Exchanges. This superior value can extend to alternatives to laying bets, which is often cited as a unique selling point of the Exchange model. Read on to understand how.

Value when laying odds

In this earlier article we highlighted how to calculate commission-free odds and explained how the odds offered on Exchanges initially appear better than Pinnacle Sports. However, once their commission is taken off to reveal the true value of the bet, Pinnacle Sports remain the smart bettor’s choice.

But what about when you lay odds? Exchanges enable you to act as a bookmaker and lay the bets, in which case you are betting against the outcome happening. Sometimes a lay bet with an Exchange is equal to another bet at Pinnacle Sports.

For example, if you lay an Away team at an Exchange expecting a draw or home win, you then do the same by betting on the Home team +0.5 at Pinnacle Sports. In both cases, you win if the Home team wins or the match ends as a draw, while you lose if the Away team wins. Similar logic applies for betting on the Away team +0.5 at Pinnacle Sports, which is equal to laying the Home team on a betting Exchange.

Other bookmakers offer this bet as “double chance” – home win or draw, away win or draw and home win or away win. For top tier matches, double chance is available on Exchanges too, but liquidity is much lower than on the 1X2 market, so you will struggle to get your bet matched at the desired odds.

Lets use an example. You believe Chelsea won’t lose away to Liverpool. Pinnacle Sports offers Chelsea +0.5 at 1.971. Alternatively, you can click the pink boxes at the Exchange and lay Liverpool at odds of 2.02, or bet on Chelsea or the draw with other bookies at odds between 1.80 and 1.95.

Obviously, Pinnacle Sports’ Chelsea +0.5 easily beats the double chance of other bookmakers, but does it offer better value than laying at the betting Exchange?

As we noticed earlier, when laying, you’re actually acting as the bookmaker, and Exchange member(s) who matched your lay bet is/are the punter(s), or backer(s).

In the example we used here, the backer bets 100, while the bookmaker offers 86, which appears to be the below equation, with the winner taking 186:

Stake * (Decimal odds – 1) or 100 * (1.86-1)

Therefore, when laying, you are risking the amount of money calculated using the formula above, which is known as “Liability”, and you can possibly win the backer’s stake, minus the commission, of course.

So, you lay Liverpool at odds of 2.02 and stake of 100. Your liability is:

100 * (2.02 – 1) = 102

Your possible winnings are the backer’s stake, or 100; if your commission is 5%, your net profit will be 95. So effectively you risked 102 to win 95 i.e. for a return of 197; hence, you got this bet at decimal odds of 197/102, or 1.931. Obviously, the profit you can achieve at Pinnacle beats the one at the Exchange by some 4%.

From this example above, it is easy to work out the formula to convert lay odds into effective back odds, i.e. odds that easily show your profit after commission. Again, if COMM represents your Exchange commission in %, and ODDS available signify your lay odds, then your actual odds, in decimal format, are calculated as:

Actual odds = 1 + (1 – COMM/100) / (ODDS – 1)

Exchanges are a useful weapon in a bettor’s armoury but the way that commission is deducted after the bet often leads them to misinterpret the extent of their value. Now you have the tools to make the calculations yourself it is up to you to decide where to bet.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

среда, 19 марта 2014 г.

How to find value in NCAA Basketball betting

How to find value in NCAA Basketball betting

By Mirio Mella Apr 4, 2012

With March Madness – the NCAA basketball main event – about to start, bettors should be aware of an opportunity to find an edge over the bookmaker. This article discusses the potential to find value betting on NCAA basketball handicaps.

Tips For Betting On NCAA Basketball

NCAA basketball offers a real opportunity for bettors to gain an edge over bookmakers. With March Madness about to start, you will want to focus your attention on teams who have qualified for "The Big Dance".

In NCAA basketball, it’s not uncommon for a total to move as much as 10 points, or for some handicaps to move five points. The early NCAA basketball sharps will bet heavily on these openers – which can be very profitable.

If an accurately priced whole-point handicap pushes about 4.5% of the time in NCAAB, betting into an early number which is off by five points will win more than 70% of the time. A total will land on a well-priced number almost 3% of the time in NCAA totals, making an opening total that is off, even easier for a player to beat.

With over 300 Division I teams, oddsmakers simply don’t have the time to analyse each game and team in-depth. Most basketball fans have a favourite Conference, which gives them an advantage over a bookmaker. If you’re a specialist in one Conference and know the players, coaches, playing styles, injuries and suspensions for all the teams in that Conference, you have invaluable insight on match-ups that feature those teams that bookmakers, simply do not.

As Pinnacle Sports open lines early, we often find that we have to resort to making an educated guess when we first put the lower limit handicaps live. This is where players who’ve done their homework on the Conferences have the advantage. We rely on these players to quickly sharpen the Pinnacle Sports odds, at which point we are then able to raise the limits.

Occasionally, you’ll see a total that is extremely off – for example, it might open at 140 over 1.952 and then close at 1.588. When an opener is off by five or more points, we sometimes choose not to move the total and look to adjust the match odds instead. This is because it can be hard to assess how much a half-point is worth when your opener is that far from the real total.

Knowledge is key when finding an edge over the bookmaker, and NCAAB offers the perfect opportunity for educated bettors to take advantage ahead of March Madness.

Click here to see the latest NCAA Basketball odds

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Where the value is in 2014 MLB betting

Where the value is in 2014 MLB betting

By Gary Wise Mar 18, 2014

With the MLB season ready to hit full swing on March 30th, MLB bettors should be inclined towards betting on World Series futures. Below, we look at factors worth considering as you search for value on the 2014 MLB outright betting markets.

Where markets and predictive models deviate.

Fangraphs is a leading baseball analytics website whose features include projection systems that use historic data to make predictions. The below chart looks at predicted W-L records for each major league team, comparing those records to corresponding team over-under lines posted amongst Pinnacle Sports’ MLB futures.

A few things to keep in mind when looking at these predictions:

MLB projections tend to play out closer to the mean than reality, in large part because these predictions don’t account for the outliers luck creates. Note that no team is predicted to win more than 91 games.

While certainly worthy of your study, we are not endorsing these predictions as the only ones you should enlist.

While our over/under lines generally started at close to even, some markets have drifted. Differential totals marked with an asterisk have moved to the point where the favoured side of the market has moved into the 1.70-1.79 range as of publication. No totals line amongst these has moved below 1.70.

Data used here on O/U is from Monday, March 17th.

2014 Team

O/U

Diff

Dodgers

92.5

1.5*

Tigers

Red Sox

Rays

Nationals

89.5

3.5

Cardinals

91.5

5.5

Angels

86.5

0.5

Athletics

88.5

4.5

Giants

86.5

2.5

Pirates

84.5

0.5*

Blue Jays

80.5

-3.5

Yankees

Mariners

-2

Rangers

Indians

80.5

-1.5

Braves

87.5

5.5*

Reds

84.5

2.5

Padres

-1

Orioles

81.5

1.5*

Diamondbacks

81.5

1.5*

Royals

Rockies

76.5

-2.5

Brewers

Phillies

76.5

1.5

Mets

-1

Cubs

-5

White Sox

76.5

2.5*

Marlins

69.5

-3.5

Twins

70.5

1.5

Astros

62.5

-5.5

The larger the number in the right-most column, the less agreement you’ll find between the predictions and markets, suggesting there is greater opportunity in betting those markets.

With negative numbers, the predictions are giving teams like the Blue Jays, Indians and Rockies a lot more credit for potential success than the markets do; an opportunity if you’re looking for longshots. Large positive numbers, like those we see with the Nationals, Cardinals, A’s and Braves, at least provide opportunity for profit in betting under the predicted number of games won, though may suggest a team isn’t worth your World Series vote.

The market (size) doesn’t matter

It’s seldom you’ll hear someone at Pinnacle Sports say the above, and this time, it’s only because of a play on words. Major media markets saturate the market with winter speculation, with the likes of the LA Dodgers, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees and Chicago Cubs – all of whom have incredibly powerful media followings – potentially getting more attention than deserved.

With those powerful clubs considered the apple of the national media’s eye (after all, national media goes in large part off what they hear from municipally-inclined media, so there’s a direct correlation between size of media market and amount of national attention), clubs in smaller markets often will not get their appropriate share of popular appraisal. Which are the smallest markets in MLB by population?

Milwaukee (1.56M), Kansas City (2.07M), Cleveland (2.09M), Cincinnati (2.17M) and Pittsburgh (2.35M). Assuming media influence is commensurate with population, even Pinnacle Sports’ non-American user-base is likely to somewhat be influenced by the local baseball news.

Big newsmakers

Our statement about not betting the Nationals, Cardinals A’s and Braves make some sense here. The Nationals are a big hype team, thanks to Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg; the Cardinals just made the World Series; the A’s are Billy Beane’s team and get more attention that their geography suggests they should; and the Braves had a huge offseason, signing many key players to long-term deals.

Divisional toughness

Ten teams make the MLB playoffs, 4 of which play immediately to take the field to eight. With that format in mind, we realize that with all things being roughly equal, a sure-thing playoff team (if there were such a thing) has a roughly 1 in 8 shot to win the title. With the most popular bets amongst champion futures close to that value, the certainty of a favoured team making the playoffs has to be weighed. The clearer the path, the better the true odds.

The Los Angeles Dodgers and Detroit Tigers have the best odds in our markets of winning the World Series and this reasoning likely plays into it. Both teams are built on multi-superstar foundations, with resources to buoy their rosters as necessary whilst playing in what are generally considered the two weakest divisions in baseball. No other team in the Tigers’ AL Central is given better odds of winning the series than the Kansas City Royals’ 32.140*; No NL West team other than the Dodgers is rated better than the San Francisco Giants’ 26.96*, and that number may be benefitting from the Giants winning the championship two years ago with a vastly different team.

Making the playoffs is the first, very big step. There’s value in knowing it’s the next best thing to a sure thing. The Tigers are at 1.392* to win their division and the Dodgers 1.463*; and the Pinnacle Sports markets are seldom very far off.

Regression to the mean

Every year, there are teams that don’t measure up to the hype and it’s often as much due to luck as skill. Injuries, offensive timing, a poor record in one-run games, etc. can contribute to a team’s downfall, and as we saw with the Toronto Blue Jays and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in 2013, there can be a snowball effect.

The good news for fans of those teams and bettors is that there’s usually some regression to the mean, which against the perception of the previous season’s win loss record can create value. Teams like the Jays and Angels, both of which saw massive injury tolls last season, should gain at least some wins just by virtue of the fact it’s a different year.

Conclusions

In the end, it mostly comes down to team Wins Above Replacement (WAR) and a little bit of luck, but the above factors all serve to throw off an individual’s WAR calculations. Finding where the masses have erred is key to getting a +EV bet down on the clubs you ultimately deem worthy. Keep looking for trends in missed calculations and you should do well in 2014.

Click here to see the latest 2014 MLB Futures odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

суббота, 15 марта 2014 г.

Rematches, age & chasing bonuses in UFC

By Gary Wise Mar 14, 2014

On March 23rd, Dan Henderson and Mauricio “Shogun” Rua headline a UFC Fight Night in a rematch of their now-classic 2011 war. Below, we look at their history and factors UFC bettors should consider when betting on the fight.

What happened in Henderson vs. Shogun 1

The UFC 139 headliner, Henderson-Shogun 1 was the rare fight that lived up to the hype. Henderson, fresh off a shocking knockout of legend Fedor Emilienenko, just-returned to the UFC with the Strikeforce Light-heavyweight belt in hand.

Henderson had been talked up for a potential title unification bout with Jon Jones, but instead got Shogun, another legend who was coming off a similar first round KO win (Forest Griffin) after losing his belt to Jones. It was clearly a title eliminator bout, with then-41 year old Henderson opening as the 1.952 favourite. He didn’t stay there for long, with money steadily creeping in on Rua, who closed at 1.641.

Despite the market’s sentiments, it was Henderson who emerged victorious in San Jose. He dominated the first two rounds, with onlookers shocked at Rua’s ability to see the bell. While the Brazilian forged a comeback in the late rounds, it was too little too late. Both men went to hospital in the aftermath of what most onlookers have called one of the greatest fights in UFC history.

The Consequences

While the brutal toll of the first fight was immediately evident on both fighters, the longer-term ramifications were still to play out. Shogun, who was 4-4 in his last 8 fights after the Hendo match (20-6 overall), is 2-2 since, including an embarrassing first round submission loss to Chael Sonnen despite being a 1.645 favourite. His wins have come over fighters who don’t measure up to his past glories.

It’s been even worse for Henderson. Promised a title fight by Dana White in the post-Rua-fight media scrum. Henderson lost the opportunity when he pulled out of the title bout with a knee injury. He’s lost his three fights since; by split decisions to Lyoto Machida and Rashad Evans, then via first round knockout at the hands of Vitor Belfort in November. Now 43, there are real questions about whether Henderson can still compete, especially after being knocked out for the first time in his career.

Henderson-Shogun 2

Regardless of the status of the fight, there are still bets to be made, and factors you’ll want to consider when you’re making them:

Yes, there’s a major sample size issue here (as with most MMA W-L data), but in headliner rematches dating back to UFC 57: Liddell vs. Couture 3 (the first UFC card named for its headliner match), of the 17 headliner rematches fought in the UFC, 11 have been won by the original victor, including 10 of the last 12.

Dan Henderson is 43 years old. More on this in a moment…

Shogun’s last 7 wins (dating back to 2007) have been by knockout or TKO. One might think this would have boded well for Henderson previous to the Belfort KO, but not so. In his excellent piece The Price of Wisdom: Age and Knockouts in MMA (a great read to research this fight), Reed Kuhn details how age-36-and-up fighters suffer a sharp uptick in the frequency at which they suffer knockouts. Belfort’s kick was a long time coming according to the history of human anatomy.

Shogun holds an edge over Henderson in strikes landed, striking accuracy, takedown average and submission attempts averaged.

Another sample size issue, but Shogun has fought in four rematches over the course of his career and won them all. Three of them have avenged previous losses. He seems to learn from his mistakes.

What you can expect

This is no Gustafsson-Manuwa, where one fighter is heavily favoured. There are strong arguments for either fighter winning a fight that most expect to stay on its feet. Why that expectation? Neither man is fighting for a title at any time in the near future; this fight is about the spectacle of sport. It’s reasonable to think there’s an expectation to live up to the standard the first fight set. It’s also reasonable to think both fighters will have a potential Fight of the Night bonus in mind.

Rua is showing up as a stronger favourite than he was the first time, but we’ve already seen that the markets could end up wrong. Still, it seems like, in a fight featuring two performers who know they’re not fighting for titles any time soon and who will want to entertain, Henderson’s advancing age and apparently weakening jaw bode poorly. Look for them to stay on their feet, a reality that favours the younger man.

Agree or disagree, you can bet on UFC Fight Night Henderson vs. Rua here.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 14 марта 2014 г.

Why Pinnacle Sports offers more value than an Exchange

By Pinnacle Sports Mar 13, 2014

We pride ourselves on offering the best value odds – including exchanges. Bettors often challenge this claim because they aren’t clear on how exchanges function or how to make a direct comparison given the distinctive model. This article should help make a clear comparison in values between Pinnacle Sports and an Exchange.

Calculating an exchanges hidden commission

Unlike regular bookmakers, exchanges charge commission on your winnings, i.e. net profit on the market. Base commission is often at 5% of your winnings, but increased to 6% or 7% for many countries. With an exchange like Betfair you place bets, you collect points that will discount your commission, but the points are subject to decay every week, and if you are really successful, you will find yourself caught in the so-called Premium Charge, that may take as much as 60% of your profit.

So, you have just seen that Pinnacle Sports offers 1X2 odds of 1.84 for Swansea to win against Crystal Palace, while that same bet is available at 1.86 at a betting exchange. And you wonder which one offers better value – is the exchange’s 1.86 after commission still better than Pinnacle Sports’ commission-free 1.84?

Decimal odds represent an inversion of probability of an event to happen (e.g., probability of landing on a head when tossing a fair coin is 50%, or 0.50, so equivalent odds are 1/0.50 = 2.00), but also a ratio of your possible return and your stake. For example, if you staked 100 at odds of 1.86, you hope to pocket 186, which consists of the 100 you staked earlier and 86 that you won.

Decimal odds = return / stake, or

Decimal odds = 1 + (profit / stake)

As we have explained, betting exchanges charge commission on net profit on the market. That means, in this example above, you will get your 100 back untouched, but the 86 that you won will have commission taken off first.

Unlike regular bookmakers, exchanges charge commission on your winnings, i.e. net profit on the market

Let’s suppose that you live in a country that has not been affected by commission increase, but unlucky enough to collect sufficient points for commission discount; that means betting exchanges like Betfair will charge 5% of your winnings, or 0.05 * 86 = 4.3; you will pocket the remaining 0.95 * 86 = 81.70.

To summarise, you risked 100 to win 81.70; therefore, you effectively got your bet at 1.817 – or some 3% worse than the odds available at Pinnacle Sports.

By now, you understand how to calculate net odds after commission; if COMM is your exchange commission in %, and ODDS available back odds, then your actual odds, in decimal format, are calculated as:

Actual odds = 1 + (1 – COMM/100) * (ODDS – 1)

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Why your staking method is more important than who you back

By Jack Ratcliffe Mar 13, 2014

Whether betting on gut instinct or backed by data-logged spreadsheets, bettors’ primarily focus on who to back. According to one prominent mathematician, however, if they want better returns, they should be more concerned with what they bet. Read on to learn one way to improve your staking.

Professional blackjack player and author Ed Thorp was a successful card-counter. Too successful, many would argue, as his ability at the tables of Las Vegas’ biggest casinos lead to the implementation of multiple decks and the start of a war on card-counting.

Despite his expertise as a professional gambler – he published two books on the subject – he attributed the majority of his success to a staking formula created by mathematician John Kelly Jr. “Playing strategy is maybe a third to a quarter … of what you’re going to get out of it. Betting strategy may be two thirds or three quarters,” he explained.

Of course, it’s easy to say that a betting strategy is important. But what makes a useful strategy? With influence from Alex Bellos’ Alex’s Adventures in Numberland, we mapped the success of five betting strategies over a series of 500 bets:

The above graph shows the profits from 500 simulated bets for five betting systems, with the probability of winning at 55% on a Binary bet. The initial bet for each method was $100 (except for the all-in method, which initially bet $1000). Each system started with a $1000 bank, and the simulation continued for each method until the 500th bet (or until their bank was minimised).

As you can see, one betting system provides far greater returns than the others, while one drops you out pretty quickly.

The five systems are outlined below – which letter do you think each line corresponds to?

Strategy 1: Bet everything, every time

Bet your entire bankroll on each bet. The advantage is that you get big returns, fast. The downside? As soon as you lose, you’re out of money and out of the game.

Strategy 2: Fixed wager

Bet a fixed amount for each bet, and don’t vary no matter how much you win. In this example, it was $100. If your chance of winning 55% on a 2.000 bet, this method means you’ve dramatically reduced your chance of losing your entire stake. Unfortunately, it means your winnings are limited to increase in a “slow and steady” fashion.

Strategy 3: Martingale

Bet double your stake after any failed bet, to cover your losses with the next bet’s winnings. This gives a quicker increase than fixed wagers (as you’re doubling up to cover any losses). If you experience sequential losses, however, the required stakes continue to double, and you’ll very soon be betting large amounts to cover your losses.

Strategy 4: Fibonacci

Increase your stake in a Fibonacci sequence, to your losses with the next bet’s winnings – learn more about the Fibonacci sequence here. This method has similar drawbacks to Martingale, but it reduces how quickly the stake increases if you’re on a losing streak (and therefore also reduces the rate at which you win).

Strategy 5: Proportional betting

Bet a fraction of your bankroll in proportion to your edge. In this simulation, we used the Kelly equation for proportional betting. In Kelly, your bet should be your edge divided by the odds. In this example, as the edge is 10% and the odds are evens, 10 / 1 is 10.

Therefore 10% of the $1000 wallet should be bet: $100. Should that bet be successful, the next bet would increase to $110, 10% of the new $1100 wallet. This means winnings increase quicker than in the fixed-wager system, and losses slow down.

The correct answer is:

A. Bet everything

B. Martingale

C. Fixed wager

D. Proportional Betting

E. Fibonacci

As you can tell from the descriptions above, proportional betting appears to have a natural advantage over the others systems. Imagine you’re down to your last $100 – you’d be betting $10, (and decreasing), keeping you in the game for much longer than a fixed-bet system, where your last $100 would be your last bet.

Which strategy is which?

Bet everything brings in big gains after the first bet, earning as much in one risk than the others do in the first seven. The light that burns seven-times as bright burns a thousandth as long, however, the “bet everything” strategy is eliminated on just the second round.

The chance of making it through 1,000 rounds at 55% is infinitesimally small as to be practically impossible (although you would have earned $67 billion by round 27).

The simulation shows that different staking techniques have vastly different outcomes, even if the variables stay the same

Fibonacci and Martingale – progressive betting systems – also start strongly, but any big sequence of losses ramp up the required stake.

In our simulation, at round 83 (R83), we lost 11 times in a row. These defeats totally wiped out both Fibonacci and Martingale’s stakes, and at the end 11-in-a-row streak the hypothetical Martingale bettor had to bet $403,000 dollars to recuperate his losses. That’s a huge amount, considering his maximum purse was just $6,300. For Fibonacci, the maximum bet was $33,500, with his purse reaching its zenith at $4,100 before the wipeout.

The only system other than proportional betting to avoid losses was fixed betting, which accrued slow but steady increments. By R83, fixed betting had increased its purse to $3,400, and afterwards it had only dropped to $2,300. It wasn’t out, but there was not a lot to show for 95 bets.

The 11-bet losing streak also hit proportional betting pretty hard, reducing its winnings from $7,359 to $2,286 – lower than that of fixed betting. This shows how well fixed betting protects your winnings. However, by bet 500, fixed betting had only brought in $6,400, while proportional betting had earned $18,275.

Bettors should note that this is based on a huge assumption that the edge is in your favour, without it the results for all staking strategies would change dramatically.

Backing your staking technique

The above simulation shows that different staking techniques have vastly different outcomes, even if the other variables stay the same. The difference between being wiped out and finishing with $18,275 after 500 bets was simply choosing a suitable staking system.

It’s important however, to remember that there is no “ideal” system. Although the Kelly system worked in the example above, there may be more developed systems for different types of bets. It’s important to discover which staking style is suitable to your betting, typically through research and simulation.

It’s also important to remember that the Kelly system only works if you know your edge, which you use to calculate your stake. If your calculation of your edge is incorrect, you’re still going to have difficulties whatever you do. Read through the rest of our archive to help sharpen yours.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

среда, 12 марта 2014 г.

Engines, Rules & new races; How to gain an edge in the 2014 F1 season

By Michael Gales Mar 12, 2014

Formula One is introducing arguably the most radical set of rule changes in the sport’s history for the upcoming 2014 season; New engines, innovative rules and two new tracks. With such dramatic changes afoot we look at how these new modifications can help Formula One bettors gain an edge in 2014.

Too predictable? The need for changes in Formula One

Last season we wrote about how bettors strive for methods to predict Grand Prix winners, and found that qualifying could provide a reasonably accurate performance indicator for F1 betting.

A look back at three GP seasons (2009, 2012 & 2013) worth of data shows that despite some exciting races throwing the finishing order into disarray, there was a good correlation between qualifying and final race positions.

A correlation of “1 would indicate that every driver qualified and finished in the same position, while “0 indicates that there was no correlation at all.

Season

Correlation

Number of races that correlated

2009

0.61

71%

2012

0.54

60%

2013

0.67

84%

The return of Pirelli as the tyre supplier in 2012 was introduced to produce more exciting races to attract fans to the sport. Its initial impact can be seen in the 0.54 correlation compared to 0.61 the season before.

However, with pressure coming from constructors and drivers for more reliability, the 2013 tyres were more durable and therefore created less uncertainty regarding tyre management, resulting in a big 0.67 correlation – a remarkable 84% of races correlated in 2013.

With races returning to predictable affairs – Sebastian Vettel won nine consecutive races, and 52% of drivers starting on pole went on to win – the FIA have reacted by introducing perhaps the biggest and most radical changes in the sports history for 2014.

Potential of unreliability creates opportunity for bettors

Perhaps the biggest change can be seen in the engines; gone are the 2.4-litre V8s – which have been used since 2006 – and in are the 1.6-litre V6 turbos.

After a freeze on engine development, engine power will once again have more of an impact on race performance. The new engines will have a power boost from the ‘hybrid’ technology, known as Ers.

Known as the ‘energy recovery system’ Ers is made up of the Kers system that has been around for a while and a second electric motor. The main difference being last year it was allowed to produce 60kw for up to 6.7 seconds a lap, compared to 150kw for 30 seconds in 2014.

This may sound good, but with such radical changes, is there a price to pay?

The short answer is that no one actually knows? And that includes bookmakers, providing a potential edge for savvy bettors. History suggests that such dramatic changes means reliability will be a major concern, certainly at the start of the season. Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has said he believes failure rates in races could be as high as 50%, while ex-driver Martin Brundle commented “I wouldn’t be surprised if half or more of the field did not finish because of the difficulties pre-season.”

With such potential for unreliability early on in the 2014 season, bettors have the opportunity to gain a real edge

Don’t let testing skew your thoughts either, as Ferrari technical director Pat Fry explains, “Ensuring cars run reliably will be more difficult at races than at tests because teams cannot work on them for as long. The sheer complexity means it will be challenged, particularly in qualifying and the race.”

With such potential for unreliability early on in the 2014 season, bettors have the opportunity to gain a real edge over the bookmaker if they can gauge what the impact might be.

Rules on fuel brings more reliance on strategy

On top of the new engines, there is now a fuel limit. Drivers will have to complete races on just 100kg of fuel forcing teams to use up to 60% less fuel per race without sacrificing performance compared to last season.

What impact will this have on racing?

According to Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey “Fuel consumption will be an overriding concern in most races this year.”

The fuel limitations will put more influence on in-race strategy. Newey stated: “Drivers will have to save fuel through the race which means different driving styles will be employed, compromising lap times to save fuel.”

Therefore drivers will toil with the ideas of going out quickly and then save fuel, or save fuel early and sprint later in the race.

However, It is worth noting the fuel limits are unlikely to have a major effect in qualifying, Newey commented that: “Some engines may perform better in terms of qualifying because fuel consumption is less of an issue than it is in the race.”

This is important for bettors to note, as the changes to fuel usage alone suggest they can no longer assume the race will correlate with qualification. How much fuel a car uses in a race is affected by driving style, car set-up, track conditions and circuit configuration – considering the affect of these more accurately than the bookmaker will give bettors an edge.

Two new race circuits present prospect of an edge

While the 2014 Formula One calendar stays at 19 races for the second successive year, India and Korea have been axed in favour of the long-awaited Russian GP and return to Austria after more than a decade away.

The Austrian Grand Prix represents more familiar territory for the sport with the Red Bull Ring previously staging races when called The A1 Ring from 1997-2003. Despite not hosting F1 since 2003, bettors should look at the circuit characteristics, average overtaking maneuvers and weather patterns, to have a better understanding of what to expect come race weekend.

On the other hand The Russian GP is a mystery and will be held at the newly formed circuit around Sochi’s Winter Olympic Park. With no history or racing data to compare, the track is a complete unknown. Therefore if it’s an unknown to the drivers, teams and bettors, it’s also unknown to the bookmakers – creating an opportunity for bettors to gain an edge.

2014 Formula One: an opportunity to make find a betting edge

Despite the dramatic and radical changes brought in to make Formula One less predictable, there is now more of an opportunity to gain an edge over the bookmakers and earn more value for your bets. This uneasy situation for the books will be at its height at the beginning of the season.

Knowledge is key when gaining an edge in betting and with major reliability issues predicted, fuel restrictions and two new race tracks, bookmakers will be less informed as they have been in previous seasons, giving 2014 Formula One bettors the potential to take advantage and make a profit.

Click here to see the latest F1 Drivers Championship odds.

Click here to see the latest F1 Constructors Championship odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

суббота, 8 марта 2014 г.

Does the Tennis market overvalue ATP players at home?

By Dan Weston Mar 7, 2014

This Tennis betting article investigates the impact of home advantage on ATP players participating in tournaments on home soil. Players are often considered to have an edge at home compared to normal matches by Tennis bettors. This article assesses whether the markets take this into consideration, or even overvalue it…

Home Field Advantage in Tennis betting

Recent articles have had a focus on the WTA so this article moves back to the ATP Tour as we look at whether there is home advantage in Tennis. Analysing this is particularly relevant with the two March US Masters events at their infancy, as so many US players receive Wild Card entries to events – none more so than Jack Sock, who has received an incredible 12 Wild Cards since January 2013 and three already this year.

Anyone reading forums or following social media will notice that a player participating in a match in their home country is considered to have an advantage. This may be for several reasons – firstly they can count on support from the crowd, which may be more partisan in some countries than others, and secondly, the courts and surface may suit them more.

Bettors that indicate players have an advantage in their home country are almost certainly making subjective assessments and making assertions that may or may not be true. It is highly debatable whether they have researched this in any detail and are probably basing their thoughts on notable events which stick out in their mind, such as Andy Murray winning Wimbledon, or Bernard Tomic playing his best in the pre-Australian Open warm-up events.

Successful bettors cannot afford to make blas subjective assessments and a quantitative approach is advised. Therefore, this article’s purpose is to see whether there is indeed a home advantage to be had for a player, and if the market either doesn’t take it into account enough, or perhaps, too much.

What the statistics highlight

There were 746 matches played by home players in 2013 on the ATP Tour and just 13 players won at prices bigger than 5.00 – those are listed below (all prices quoted are Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices):-

Odds

Winning Player

Opponent

5.31

De Bakker

Youzhny

5.34

Herbert

Paire

5.66

Gimeno

Gasquet

5.74

Peliwo

Nieminen

5.84

Khachanov

Tipsarevic

5.94

Ram

Fognini

6.22

V. Pospisil

Berdych

6.58

Edmund

De Schepper

7.45

Garin

Lajovic

7.63

Sijsling

Tsonga

7.66

Khachanov

Hanescu

7.67

Isner

Djokovic

11.52

Sock

Raonic

Karen Khachanov managed two late wins at big prices in the latter part of the 2013 season in Russian events as a wild card, and hasn’t done a great deal besides that since. It’s also worth noting that Filip Peliwo’s win over Jarkko Nieminen was done via a 3rd set retirement. Jack Sock’s win over Milos Raonic was the biggest priced win by a considerable margin.

The table below illustrates the overall results of home players on the ATP Tour in the 2013 season, sorted by region. All prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices and all bets applied were using 100 level stakes.

North America

South America

Europe

Rest of the World

Overall

238

112

47.06

344

1.45

35.9

-818

-20.97

418

213

50.96

-2647

-6.33

29.41

-2680

-52.55

746

354

47.45

-5801

-7.78

Is HFA a fallacy in Tennis?

We can see from the above table that only in North America did the home player have a positive return on investment. This is in line with previous research which shows that North American ATP players have strong records at home and very weak records abroad. Five of the 13 players who recorded wins priced over 5.00 were North American.

Despite having a higher win percentage, European players in their home country had a worse return on investment than North Americans, with a -6.33% figure being generated from 418 matches. Clearly there is not a significant home advantage for Europeans, although it’s worth mentioning that the research showed German players did well in their events last year.

Whilst European players fared badly in their home countries, their results paled into insignificance compared to South American players, and those from the Rest of the World. Both recorded horrific win percentages and huge losses from their matches sampled. Despite the sample sizes being fairly small for these regions, it is apparent that the markets hugely over-rated these when at home.

Overall, from the 746 matches sampled, a very poor -7.78% return on investment was recorded and this clearly shows that the markets give far too much benefit to those players playing in their home countries. Indeed, disregarding North American events, a blanket strategy of opposing all players playing at home can be considered, and without doubt this information can be used as part of a balanced betting strategy.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Are Spurs underrated when United visit White Hart Lane?

By Michael Gales Nov 27, 2013

With Manchester United undefeated in the last ten games at White Hart Lane, we look at both the handicap history and form to see if they offer bettors a better chance than the 1×2 of making a profit on Spurs this Saturday?

Is Spurs’ struggle to score affecting their handicap form?

Tottenham manager Andre Villas-Boas is under intense pressure after Spurs suffered a humiliating 6-0 defeat last time out at Manchester City. Despite spending around 100m in the summer, the Lilywhites have failed to impress and currently sit 9th.

Until the game against City, Spurs had the best defensive record in the Premier League, had dominated possession in 81% of their EPL games and had the most shots on target.

However it is their poor form in front of goal that is unsettling the fans. Despite dominating the play and creating a host of chances, they have scored just nine goals – third worst in the Premier League – and hold the record for worst shot to goal ratio in the division.

Spurs spent big money on Roberto Soldado in the summer who AVB hoped would lead the line for his possession-based style of play. Despite his obvious talent he has struggled in front of goal – scoring just four EPL goals and three from the spot. Spurs’ troubles in front of goal led to AVB bringing on Emmanuel Adebayor – who hadn’t played a game all season and had been training with the reserves – over Jermaine Defoe against City. Does this show AVB is desperate for a target man to fit his tactics?

With a lack of goals, it is interesting to note that Spurs have covered 50% of games this season.

However, at White Hart Lane despite covering the spread in the first two games against Swansea and Norwich respectively, they have failed to do so since – four games. In these four games they have scored just two goals, which highlights their problem in front of goal, and is a bad omen ahead of the visit of one of their bogey teams.

Bettors need to work out whether this is a short-term problem and that their lack of goals is down to bad luck – against Newcastle Tim Krul made 14 saves, which is an EPL record – or if the problem is more deep rooted to AVB’s tactics and the lack of a focal point in attack?

United continue to struggle on the handicap

Manchester United are unbeaten in their last ten games in all competitions. Since their 2-1 home defeat at the hands of West Brom they have gone six games unbeaten in the EPL and have climbed to sixth in the table.

United may have started to put their unconvincing start to the season behind them and to showcase the form of defending champions but what does this mean for handicap betting?

A look at their handicap form versus the spread shows that they are underperforming as they have covered just three (25%) games all season – joint worst in the EPL.

Last season they covered the spread on the road in 52.6% of games compared to this season, which has seen them cover just 33% of games away from the ‘Theatre of Dreams’.

Despite their recent unbeaten run, United are still not performing to the standards assigned by the bookies. Bettors should decide whether or not the bookies are overestimating their strength?

Tottenham vs. Manchester United: Head-to-head at White Hart Lane

In the Premier League Tottenham have failed to beat Manchester United at White Hart Lane in the last ten seasons – losing six and drawing four.

Despite failing to beat United they have covered the spread in 40% of games – the four draws – which is due to Spurs being handicap underdogs in all ten games.

This year the handicap is set at 0 with Tottenham as the 1.877* favourites and United at 2.070*. Have the bookmakers realised they have been overestimating the strength of United, and adjusted the handicap accordingly? Or do they believe Spurs’ troubles up front are more to do with bad luck and that they are ready to turn their fortunes around? Either way it’s up to the bettor to decide which team will prevail in a game the bookmakers have both teams at equal strength.

Click here to see the latest Tottenham vs. Manchester United odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Will the conditions favour Group C favourites Colombia?

By Michael Gales Dec 19, 2013

Colombia are the clear 2014 World Cup Group C favourites to progress into the last 16 ahead of Japan, the Ivory Coast and Greece. How much will the travel and conditions benefit the South Americans and hinder the rest?

Colombia: Are they undervalued?

Fifa Ranking: 4th

Best Finish: Last 16 (1990)

Overall Miles to travel: 932^

Odds to win 2014 World Cup: 21.000*

In a weak Group C Colombia are the 1.278* favourites to reach the 2014 World Cup knockout stages for just the second time – having been eliminated at the Group stages in three of their four previous appearances.

The fourth best team in the world – according to Fifa – qualified comfortably in second-place behind Argentina. They set a personal record by winning 30 points from 16 games, which included notable 4-0 and 3-1 wins against Uruguay and Chile respectively, while they battled hard to earn a point in a goalless draw in Argentina.

Colombia conceded the fewest goals in South American qualifying and secured an impressive 85% of possible points from winning positions. Interestingly in-play bettors should take note that they failed to score from a corner in 16 games; is this a consequence of poor delivery, good defending or just bad luck?

Much of Colombia’s potential success will revolve around striker Radamel Falcao, who scored nine times in qualifying and has 151 goals in 193 club games since playing in Europe.

The conditions in Brazil are likely to favour Los Cafeteros. Their qualifying games were played in the scorching Caribbean port of Barranquilla, opting for mid-afternoon kick-offs in the belief that their rivals would wilt in the heat. At 38, captain Mario Yepes, belied his age in qualification but will he be up to three games in quick succession?.

Apart from the familiar conditions the Colombian’s also have much fewer miles to travel during the group stages compared to their Group C rivals. With shorter travelling times and a familiarity to the conditions, are they undervalued?

Colombia’s record against Group C opponents

H-to-H Record

Win

Loss

Draw

Win %

Ivory Coast

Japan

50%

Greece

Ivory Coast: Golden generation turning grey

Fifa Ranking: 17th

Best Finish: Group Stage (2006 & 2010)

Overall Miles to travel: 2,081^

Odds to win 2014 World Cup: 121.000*

The Ivorians are an ageing squad and much like England’s golden generation they have failed to live up to expectations. This is surely the last chance for them to stamp their mark on the world stage, and odds of 2.160* suggest progression from Group C is not a given.

Their failure is evident given they are yet to break their African Cup of Nations duck and failed to get out of the World Cup group stages in 2006 and 2010 when great things were expected. With that said they have been drawn in two ‘Groups of Death’ finishing third behind Argentina and the Netherlands in 2006 and Brazil and Portugal in 2010.

Along with Nigeria, Les lphants were the only African side to qualify unbeaten. They won their preliminary group before beating Senegal 4-2 on aggregate. During qualifying they proved their desire to remain unbeaten by taking 56% of their points from losing positions, while they were one of seven teams who have qualified to score in every match.

With an easier group than they have faced in previous World Cups, is this the time for Didier Drogba and co to deliver? Or will complacency creep into the Ivorian’s approach?

Ivory Coast’s record against Group C opponents

H-to-H Record

Win

Loss

Draw

Win %

Colombia

Japan

50%

Greece

Japan: Do they have the potential to be a surprise package?

Fifa Ranking: 48th

Best Finish: Round of 16 (2002 & 2010)

Overall Miles to travel: 1,731^

Odds to win 2014 World Cup: 121.000*

The Japanese are renowned as a technically gifted team yet defensively susceptible and a little light-weight; as a result they are offered at 2.070* to progress to the knockout stage for the third time.

They have qualified for every World Cup since 1998 and were the first to confirm their name in the draw for 2014. They dominated Asia’s final qualifying group recording 17 points and finishing top scorers – interestingly scoring 30% of their goals from headers.

Despite this, Japan have suffered a dip in form over the last year, which has seen them drop from 24th in the World Rankings to 48th following three straight defeats in the Confederations Cup and losses against Serbia and Belarus. However they responded by drawing in the Netherlands and then beating Belgium in November.

Does this revival in form offer an indication that Japan could yet be a surprise package at the World Cup or is their Confederations Cup embarrassment in Brazil a sign of things to come?

Japan’s record against Group C opponents

H-to-H Record

Win

Loss

Draw

Win %

Ivory Coast

50%

Colombia

Greece

100%

Greece: Will strong defence be enough?

Fifa Ranking: 12th

Best Finish: Group Stage (1994 & 2010)

Overall Miles to travel: 1,409^

Odds to win 2014 World Cup: 151.000*

Greece are the 3.420* Group C underdogs to progress to the knockout stage, despite being the second best ranked team in the group. In their two previous World Cup campaigns (1994 & 2010) they departed in the group stages, but at Euro 2012 they upset the odds to beat Russia and reach the quarter-finals.

The Greeks finished second in their qualifying group behind Bosnia but beat Romania 4-2 on aggregate in the Playoffs. During qualifying they conceded just four times and two of them were from freekicks.

Portuguese coach, Fernando Santos, has been manager since taking over from Otto Rehhagel – who masterminded Greece’s remarkable Euro 2004 win – in 2010. Santos has previously stated his desire to make the team more expansive, only for them to as he puts it “slip back into our comfort zone, our defensive strength”.

Greece may have a solid defence but to progress to the last 16 they will need to offer more in attack. Target man Kostas Mitroglou may provide the answer for the Ethniki. He has been in terrific form for Olympiakos scoring a goal every 2.04 games, while he netted three times against Romania to qualify.

To qualify for the knockout stages Greece may have to sacrifice a bit of defensive solidity in favour of a more attacking approach, it’s up to you to decide whether this will help or hinder their chances?

Greece’s record against Group C opponents

H-to-H Record

Win

Loss

Draw

Win %

Ivory Coast

Japan

Colombia

^ This is the overall number of miles each nation will travel during the group stages from their selected base camp.

Click here to see the latest 2014 World Cup futures odds.

Click here to see the latest 2014 World Cup match odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Do statistics suggest previous award success presage an Oscar?

By Michael Gales Jan 31, 2014

Oscars betting is a popular market. This article looks at historical data to see if it’s possible to predict the winner of these prestigious awards by looking at other key ceremonies?

As we approach the end of the film awards season, bettors turn their attention to the main attraction: The Oscars. The nominations for the prestigious accolades were announced on January 16th, and that same day odds for the winner of the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Actress were posted at Pinnacle Sports.

Predicting the outcome of the Oscars

The key question for bettors is can you predict the winner of these prestigious awards by looking at other results? Three influential awards ceremonies – the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice – have already handed out prizes for these categories, this season. How reliable are these as predictors for Oscar glory? The table below highlights the 2013 winners for the four categories at these three award ceremonies.

2013 Winners in the Road to the Oscars

Golden Globes

Critics’ Choice

SAG

Best Picture

12 Years A Slave

American Hustle

Best Actor

Matthew McConaughey

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett

Best Director

Alfonso Cuarn

N/A

The diagram below shows how often these awards chose the same winner for the four categories as the Oscars. (For the Golden Globes the data is a combination of both drama and musical and comedy.)

Best Picture: Does American Hustle have an outside chance?

The stats suggest the Oscar for best picture will go to either 12 Years a Slave, or American Hustle. Only twice – Braveheart (1995) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) – since 1995 have all three-award ceremonies failed to pick the eventual winner.

The statistics show that the Golden Globes have predicted the Oscar winner for the Best Picture 66% of the time since 1960. Second are the Critics’ Choice with a prediction success rate of 61% since 1995, and finally the SAG (50%).

However, a look at the last decade suggests the Golden Globes powers of prediction are waning having predicted the winner just 40% of the time.

Furthermore, the Critics’ Choice awards have picked the same Best Picture winner as the Oscars for six out of the last seven years (the exception being The Social Network in 2010) and have been correct 70% of the time over the past ten years.

Either way both ceremonies chose 12 Years a Slave as the winner of the best Picture and the Pinnacle bookmakers have the film as the 1.333* favourites ahead of Gravity 3.790* and the American Hustle 4.230*.

Interestingly the American Hustle is third favourite despite being selected as the SAG winner – the SAG has picked the winner only twice before since 1995 when selecting a different film compared to both the Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice – Crash (2005) and The King’s Speech (2010).

Best Actor & Actress: Are McConaughey & Blanchetta ‘shoe in’?

The Golden Globes and the SAG have been the most reliable ceremonies at predicting the Best Actor and Actress Oscar winners.

The statistics highlight that the Golden Globes have picked the same best actor as the Oscars 76% of the time since 1960, while the SAG have a 1% increase since 1995, including picking the same winners in the last nine years.

Since 1995 all three ceremonies have selected the same winner as the Oscars on nine (50%) occasions. This year they have selected Matthew McConaughey, and the bookies believe this is a pre-cursor with odds as short as 1.324*, which resembles an implied probability of 75.53%.

Only twice before in 2001 and 2002 – Denzel Washington and Adrien Brody respectively – have all three been wrong, which gives second favourite Chiwetel Ejiofor a chance at 4.100*.

The best Actress winner sees the Golden Globes have a better success rate than the other two awards at 70% including the past four winners, while the SAG are slightly behind on 68%. However, the Critics Choice have only picked the same winner as the Oscars 50% of the time.

Like the best Actor category all three ceremonies have selected the same actress prior to the Oscars – Cate Blanchett. In the eight years that all three have selected the same winner, the actress has gone on to win at the Oscars 87.5% of the time.

Pinnacle Sports have Blanchett as the massive 1.092* favourite, giving her an implied probability of 91.58%. History doesn’t look good for second favourite Amy Adams 8.770*, with Kate Winslet in 2008 being the only time since 1995 that either the Golden Globes or the SAG have not picked the eventual Oscar winner.

Best Director: Can Alfonso Cuarn clean up?

In comparison to the best Actor/Actress awards it is the Critics Choice winner instead of the Golden Globes selection that bettors should take more notice of when selecting the Oscar winner for Best Director.

The Critics’ Choice has picked the same Best Director as the Oscars on 77% of occasions compared to just 49% by the Golden Globes. In fact the Globes have failed to predict the winner for the last four years.

Gravity director Alfonso Cuarn won both the Golden Globe and the Critics’ Choice award and is the heavy 1.064* favourite with Pinnacle Sports. Nevertheless, both have been wrong on three occasions which gives Steve McQueen a chance of winning at 6.100*.

How influential are previous Oscar nominations?

We have highlighted trends for Oscar winners based on winners at three influential ceremonies leading up to the Oscars, but how significant are past Oscar nominations in predicting a winner?

The graph below looks at three Oscar categories – Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Director – in terms of:

Whether the winner had won an Oscar before

If they had been nominated before?

The average times a winner was nominated before winning?

How many winners had won at their first attempt?

Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly repeat Oscar winners are rare. Since 1960 Only 11% of Best Actor winners had claimed an Oscar previously, which is slightly worse than Best Director (17%) and Best Actress (19%).

Only The Wolf Of Wall Street director Martin Scorcese 50.350* has won an Oscar for Best Director from the current nominations, while Sandra Bullock (1) 9.930* and Meryl Streep (2) 37.010* have won three Oscars for Best Actress between them. None of the actors in for an award have won previously.

29 directors have won an Oscar on their first nomination and this trend is expected again this year, as Alfonso Cuarn, and Steve McQueen are the two favourites. A win for either would go against the trend that sees the winner of Best Director collect an Oscar on average after 2.02 nominations – Both David Owen Russell 14.060* and Alexander Payne 188.640* have been nominated twice before without success.

On average it takes 2.39 nominations to win the Best Actor Oscar, while 57% of winners had been nominated before. However only Leonardo Di Caprio 7.970* has been nominated before – twice – from the current crop of nominees. This leaves favourite Matthew McConaughey, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bruce Dern 15.430*and Christian Bale 109.670* all vying to become the 24th first nominee winner.

45% of Best Actress winners have been nominated for the award before, this year only Amy Adams in the category hasn’t been nominated previously as she aims to become the 28th actress to win an Oscar after her first nomination.

Historically it has taken an average of 2.64 nominations before winning the award. Current favourite Cate Blanchett fits the trend having been nominated twice before without winning, while Judi Dench has been nominated five times without being successful, but is an outsider at 23.470*.

This article highlight that despite statistical anomalies throughout the years previous award winners in the same year can presage an Oscar, and with more research bettors can make educated predictions based on earlier key ceremony outcomes when betting on Oscar winners.

Click here for the latest 86th Academy Awards odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

BetFair	BetFair online BetFair site
Pinnacle	Pinnacle Sports site
BWIN	Bwin site
Unibet	Unibet site

воскресенье, 30 марта 2014 г.

четверг, 27 марта 2014 г.

понедельник, 24 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 22 марта 2014 г.

пятница, 21 марта 2014 г.

среда, 19 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 15 марта 2014 г.

пятница, 14 марта 2014 г.

среда, 12 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 8 марта 2014 г.

воскресенье, 30 марта 2014 г.

четверг, 27 марта 2014 г.

понедельник, 24 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 22 марта 2014 г.

пятница, 21 марта 2014 г.

среда, 19 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 15 марта 2014 г.

пятница, 14 марта 2014 г.

среда, 12 марта 2014 г.

суббота, 8 марта 2014 г.