среда, 30 июля 2014 г.

How to predict the card count in the World Cup

How to predict the card count in the World Cup

By Mark Taylor Jun 11, 2014

Tweet

Read this Total Booking Points betting article to understand how researching referee nationality, historical trends and recent competitive form can help bettors predict the card count for World Cup games.

The abiding memory of the 2010 World Cup Final, won by Spain with a single goal four minutes before the end of extra time against the Netherlands, was the large number of cards issued by England’s Howard Webb. Nine yellows were shown in regulation time and five more, including a second yellow for John Heitinga in extra time.

Excessive, certainly, both in the context of the 2010 tournament and previous hosting’s of the competition and perhaps also surprising in view of a European referee officiating two European teams. But also, it was testament of the extremes that can occur over a single match.

Inevitably, Webb’s handling of the match received criticism, but a more measured assessment could hardly omit the part played in the large card makeup by both sets of players. Many considered de Jong’s chest high, first half tackle worthy of a straight red and Iniesta, was booked for removing his shirt to reveal a tee shirted tribute to a fellow professional immediately after scoring the only goal.

So in attempting to predict the card count in a World Cup match, we should, as a bare minimum consider the disciplinary record of the respective sides, along with the identity of the referee.

Theory behind bookings

Iniesta’s celebration is an uncommon contradiction of the more general truth that cards come about largely through an accumulation of fouls, which themselves arise through a need to make tackles. So while some sides may have a more aggressive approach that invites bookings, as a general rule, the more tackles and potential fouls a team is forced to make, the more likely they are to receive a card.

So invariably the weaker team in the match will tend to pick up a larger share of the cards and the general relationship using the universal 10 points for a yellow card and 25 for a red, derived from 10 seasons of EPL data is that:

Proportion of card makeup = 0.64-(0.28*(Proportion of total goals a team is expected to score)).

In a match where 2.6 goals are expected to be scored on average and Team A is expected to score, on average, 2 goals or 2/2.6 percent of the total, from the relationship above, that team would expect to receive 42% of the expected total card makeup in that game. The remaining 58% of the bookings makeup would go to their weaker opponents. (Read this article to understand – How bookings affect live soccer betting.)

To reinforce this relationship, fouls committed nearer to your own goal, usually by defenders or midfielders, tend to be treated more harshly by referees.

If you took all fouls given away on a match by match basis during the 2011/12 Premiership season by every participating player, you find that a defender who commits at least three fouls in a game is more likely than not to have also received a booking. For midfielders this tipping point is reached after four infractions and a striker can happily commit between five and six fouls before it is odds on that he has seen a card.

The 2010 final, therefore illustrates some of the general trends that contribute towards card totals. Spain had been exceptionally well behaved prior to the final match, picking up just three yellow cards in six previous matches. Indicative of the connection between tackling in your own half of the pitch, fouls and cards.

Spain is, of course a side that coverts possession and did the lion’s share of the attacking. However, when faced with an aggressive opponent and a hugely important game, even the best behaved of sides can flex their ill-disciplined muscles.

The identity of the tournament also determines card count. The Premiership, historically has a lower card total than La Liga despite both being European leagues. An EPL game averages around 35 points compared to over 60 in Spain.

World Cup finals matches lie between these two extremes, averaging around 50 points per game over the last five tournaments. Despite the different levels of average card count that exists, not only within the same confederation, but also across different regions. South American referees, in keeping with Spanish based referees are often shown to be more disciplinarians than their counterparts in England.

Nationality of the referee

These domestic differences largely disappear on the World Cup stage. Smaller sample sizes for the less well represented confederations can lead to occasional outlying results, but FIFA appear to dictate that a uniform approach is required for their show piece event to prevent a team unfairly receiving suspensions because of the national identity of the referees they have played under.

The makeup for each European, North and Central, South American and Asian referees, as a group has stayed within a point or two of the tournament average for the last four events, with the lesser represented regions, such as Africa and Oceania falling around half a dozen points below the norm.

Similarly, over the last six seasons, La Liga referees have officiated in their domestic league games with an average makeup of 63 points, yet when the best of their generation has taken charge of Euro and World Cup qualifying games in recent years, their games have resulted in an unremarkable average makeup of 38, very slightly below par for the tournament.

Both referees and to a degree, players appear to appreciate the need to tailor their disciplinary performance to the wishes of the organising committees, with FIFA able to eventually suspend unruly players and rest maverick officials.

Therefore, in attempting to predict card makeups for the World Cup we can expand on our rudimentary approach.

How to predict the number of cards in the World Cup

Firstly, assume that the average makeup per game will be close to the recent tournament average of 50 points. Spread quotes for the 2014 tournament as a whole appear to confirm this assertion.

Next, bettors should use historical statistics based around the whole game rather than the record of individual teams within the game, because of the inevitable human interaction that may drive on-field behaviour.

Then if bettors wish to estimate individual team totals, divide the expected match total, using pre game goal expectations to give more of the predicted total points to the weaker team which is likely to be involved in making more tackles closer to their own goal.

Draw data from the same tournaments, where possible and recognise that markets invariably refer to 90 minutes play. European teams have almost all played 10 competitive qualifying matches to reach the finals, South American qualifiers have played nearly twice that number and it would be wise to omit friendlies which are often refereed differently. So there is a pool of recent and competitive matches to draw data from.

For Premiership matches there is a reasonable correlation between a team’s average match makeup after ten games and their final makeup after 38 matches. But be prepared to rein apparent outliers closer to the likely competition average or perhaps bolster data from similar earlier competitive tournaments, such as the Euros.

Largely ignore raw figures, we are looking for trends within national sides to be involved in generally well behaved or relatively badly behaved matches compared to the overall makeup of the competition.

Turning to referees, again, ignore raw makeups for individual referees from their domestic leagues, but instead look for ones, who over a season may be either more lenient or disciplinarian compared to the average for their usual place of work.

In the four premier domestic European leagues, referees are most lenient in England, becoming increasingly strict in Germany, then Italy and finally Spain. So an average domestic makeup of 45 would be considered draconian for an EPL referee, but lenient for a Spanish La Liga official. The raw numbers can be misleading.

Natural Self-preservation should ensure that officials have FIFA’s required 50 makeup as a benchmark, but they may not be able to fully disregard their natural refereeing style. A lenient La Liga ref may also dip slightly below the required World Cup average.

Try not to be too influenced solely by the record of officials in the World Cup qualifying matches. Invariably sample size will be small and trends unreliable. For example, after six matches of the 2011/12 EPL season, Howard Webb’s average bookings makeup was 64. By the conclusion of the season, it was an unremarkable 34.

Finally, be aware of special circumstances within a game, although try not to over inflate the importance. Some sides are natural rivals outside of World Cups, analogous to derby matches in domestic football, where makeups increase and even at a World Cup some group games, especially the final group game, may carry more importance than others.

Also be aware that bookings quotes may be pitched slightly high as people tend to want to root for events to occur rather than hope that they don’t.

As an example, the heady cocktail of two sides used to participating in matches that produce above average makeups, overseen by a referee of similar leanings would reasonably expect, on average to produce a well above average makeup.

This simplest way to combine these three major factors on the card makeup is to multiply them together. For a less extreme example, a team whose historical record sees them play in matches that are 1.1 times the average for the competition from which the data has been drawn, facing a side that is 1.05 times average, refereed by a lenient official whose matches are 0.8 times average would score a combined 0.924 once these three rates are multiplied.

Again from historical data, this combined figure typically produces a bookings makeup that is 0.95 times the historical average for the current competition or 47.5 for a World Cup.

This final conversion factor is given by

Producing predictions is as much about avoiding plausible, yet erroneous assumptions and when the footballing family, with such great diversity, come together every four years, there are many such possible pitfalls. Not least in how the matches are likely to be officiated.

Mark Taylor is a freelance soccer and NFL writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also runs his own soccer analytics blog, the Power of Goals.

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

Does the tennis betting market panic after a player loses when heavy favourite?

Does the tennis betting market panic after a player loses when heavy favourite?

By Dan Weston Jun 16, 2014

Tweet

Shock defeats happen on a regular basis in sport, and Tennis is no exception. This article assesses how top ATP players respond to these defeats, and looks at whether the market takes this into account efficiently.

The perception of many bettors and observers is that for a player priced as a heavy favourite to lose, there must be something wrong with them. Injuries, fatigue, or personal problems are frequently used as reasons and excuses for a short-priced player losing, generally as opposed to the heavy underdog playing exceptionally well, or perhaps conditions not necessarily suiting the favourite.

If the latter two cases were indeed true, then the favourite would not have a significant short-term problem, and it would therefore follow that their subsequent match in their next tournament could be treated as a completely different entity, with little or no weight given to their previous defeat.

However, if a heavy favourite was indeed defeated because they were injured, tired, or had issues away from the court, this is naturally much more likely to affect their chances of winning their next match.

The problem many bettors have – particularly in an individual sport like Tennis, where a player cannot be ‘carried’ by team-mates – is that this is a very inexact science, and in many cases, it’s not possible to pinpoint the exact reasons for a defeat, with there being various intangible reasons for a lacklustre showing. Does a player look tired because they are ill? Or is lethargy mistaken for slow conditions, which made it hard for that player to find their natural rhythm?

If many bettors have this issue, it’s logical to assume that the market might have inefficiencies, with a lot of guesswork being applied to a player’s chances in their subsequent match following a short-priced defeat. It would also be logical to assume the market might panic with guesswork, rumours, and over-thinking about a player’s next match.

The following table illustrates the price range stats of the current ATP top 50, in the last 12 months, in their subsequent match following a defeat priced 1.25 or below. For clarity, only matches where at least one set completed were considered, and all prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices. (Data correct as at 12th June 2014):

Odds

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L

ROI

1.00-1.25

46

43

93.48

196

4.26

1.26-1.5

18

16

88.89

322

17.89

1.51-2

20

15

75.00

525

26.25

2.01-2.99

5

2

40.00

-57

-11.40

3.00+

3

0

0.00

-300

-100.00

Overall

92

76

82.61

686

7.46

Quite surprisingly, the table shows that there were just 92 defeats for players priced 1.25 or below amongst the current ATP top 50.

World number one Rafael Nadal contributed seven of these defeats, which naturally would sound alarming for his backers when short-priced. Readers would be forgiven if they assumed on that basis that the Spaniard was a player that should be routinely opposed when priced below 1.25, but it’s worth pointing out that he also played the most matches in this odds range – an incredible 69 occasions.

Furthermore, Nadal also won all seven of his subsequent matches after a defeat priced under 1.25, and also managed to achieve straight sets wins in all of these matches.

Nadal’s big rival and world number two, Novak Djokovic, also lost three matches in this odds range, and he too bounced back with three straight set victories.

However, Australian Open champion and world number three, Stan Wawrinka, did not fare so well in this respect. The Swiss player has actually lost three of his last four matches, all priced below 1.25 – against Dominic Thiem, Tommy Haas, and Guillermo Garcia-Lopez. Previous articles have discussed some issues Wawrinka has, and it’s very likely that his current ranking is a false one.

Another notable player in this respect was Grigor Dimitrov. Tipped by many as the new Roger Federer, the Bulgarian prospect struggled in Grand Slams when expected to win comfortably. In fact, Dimitrov has played five Grand Slam matches across four events in the last year when he was priced below 1.25 – winning just two of them. Defeats came against Grega Zemlja at Wimbledon (priced 1.218), Joao Sousa at the US Open (1.072) and Ivo Karlovic in the recent French Open (1.077). It’s clear that if Dimitrov is to reach his potential, it will be mandatory that he improves his consistency when a heavy favourite.

Despite quite a small sample, it can be seen that the overall results for backing a player after a sub 1.25 defeat were very positive, with a 7.46% return on investment generated from the 92 matches sampled.

It can also be seen that the top 50 ATP players generally bounced back immediately when expected to do so, with 74 wins from 84 matches (88.1%) when a player was favourite in their next match. This would indicate that the market – as mentioned earlier in the article – indeed panics and over-reacts following an immediately previous defeat for a player when a heavy favourite.

Only two from eight players managed to win when an underdog after a defeat when heavy favourite, with Denis Istomin’s victory over Jarkko Nieminen (priced 2.335) on the clay of Dusseldorf in May 2014 being the biggest priced win.

On the basis of the sample analysed, it would appear that bettors should not over-analyse a shock defeat for a player, and unless there are obvious reasons as to why this defeat occurred, should treat that player’s next match on its individual merits.

*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.

Read our HoS thoughts on the World Cup & more

Read our HoS thoughts on the World Cup & more

By Gary Wise Jun 27, 2014

Tweet

On June 26th, the final day of Group Stage play at the 2014 World Cup, our Head of Sportsbook (HoS) took over the official @PinnacleSports twitter account to answer any questions our followers might have. The following is a transcript of that discussion, with language and grammar fixed for reading clarity:

Q1. From email: Why couldn’t bettors parlay two third-round matches from the same World Cup group?

HoS: The last group matches of a World Cup are correlated to each other. They are scheduled to play at the same time for that reason, but coaches are not oblivious to the other game status and will alter their strategy depending on the influence of the other game results.

Q2. From email: What would be your best tips to becoming a successful punter?

HoS: I could spin an answer for you, but really, I think our marketing people have done a great job. Watching their videos and reading their articles is a big step. **Note: You can find our videos here: http://www.pinnaclesports.com/media/videos **

Q3. From email: Do you have punters who make a living via pinnacle?

HoS: We have a lot of customers who are considered professionals. They wouldn’t be if they weren’t winning against us

Q4. From @Itfc1972: Will NASCAR ever be reintroduced?

HoS: Likely not, but you never know. I like to offer as many Events as possible. My goal is that clients can always find something to wager on. That being said niche Sports (I am looking at you cycling and badminton) do not generate the same interest as the major sports and thus the time to get markets up and the amount of product we offer for each market is not equal to that of a premier event.

Q5. From @nikolitso: How do you mark a customer as a winner? And what % of your customers are winners?

HoS: Somebody who makes a long-term profit over a large amount of wagers. I have never looked at the % of customers who fit that criteria.

Q6. From @Dharms_1984: When will your NFL division prices go live please?

HoS: I actually don’t know. I’ll have Gary find out for you after the Q&A **Note: We found out later that they’ll go live in late July or early August, though no firm date has been set of yet.**

Q7. From @Covers: What World Cup team have your oddsmakers had the toughest time getting a grasp of?

HoS: Well, the African teams are always difficult because they don’t play many high-calibre matches I think Spain were as surprising to us as anyone else (except maybe Nate Silver).

Q8. From @Covers: Which player (men’s or women’s) would be the biggest hit to the Wimbledon outright book if they won?

HoS: Let me have a look! Madison Keys @ 11.0 for the women and Marin Cilic for the men. Marin @ 21.0.

Q9. From @57percent: Speaking of Nate Silver, how much do his odds play in to your line development?

HoS: As much as customers with many years of information do. Nate clearly is a smart guy, and there are a lot of smart guys. There’s probably some merit to his analysis.

Q10. From: @Dennis7Manace: How much of your pricing is independent and how much from the market with so many companies in the industry?

HoS: I can’t divulge an exact percentage, but needless to say, both are relevant.

Q11. From: @algottfridsson: Will there really be a $1 mil limit on the WC final?

HoS: Yes. I don’t break promises on our products. I said it, so it will happen. **Note: Every match thus far has seen spread limits go to $250,000 and we’re only just about to get to the KO stages.**

Q12. From @nikolitso: You offered an enormous price on Messi to score yesterday (2.00). Other bookies no more than 1.70. Why?

HoS: Well, first of all, our margins are better. Second, a number of our bettors fancied Messi to not score a goal. Maybe they expected Messi to go off early since Argentina had already clinched qualification.

Q13. From Covers: Are all the high scoring games a budding trend for international soccer?

HoS: I did not get my updated copy of this http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Grays_Sports_Almanac … hard to say without it.

Q14. From @Covers: Do you see this as perhaps an evolution into a high scoring game?

HoS: Honestly, tough to say. The earlier mentioned sample size issues persist here. It could all be a product of the Brazilian environment (fun, warm).

Q15. From @Covers: And how are you treating totals with the elimination stage coming up?

HoS: We’ll probably be more conservative than after we adjusted for Group Stage goal scoring. That said, it’s the potential end of the tournament for everyone…they may play like they have nothing to lose.

Q16. From @Diogo__Sena : You’ve had ITF tournaments for some months now, would you say it’s a won investment on your behalf? Volume wise?

HoS: Yes, it’s been great for us. Customers love the product and we’re getting good traction on it. I’m very happy with this product. A great example of why volume is crucial to budding markets.

Q17. From @algottfridsson: If they win the WC, which team will make you suffer the most, (futures market)?

HoS: USA, then Brazil, no doubt. That’s surprising, considering we don’t face USA

Q18. From algottfridsson: From which continent do you see the most volume?

HoS: We prefer to not answer these kind of questions for our customer’s confidence and security.

Q19. From @Covers : Suarez banned! How much does he impact Uruguay’s odds?

HoS: Close to a quarter goal, I’d imagine. Maybe 15-20 cents. You think you’ve seen everything in this industry. I still can’t believe he did it again!

Q20. From email: When determining the odds for the event do you set the odds to completely reflect mathematical probabilities of the outcome of an event or do you set your odds based on your expectations of the bettor’s preference?

HoS: We’re part of a worldwide market. We obviously care about those forces, but at the end of the day, we have to risk manage our own activities and not worry about the world market in that regard

HoS: I can’t believe no one has asked me about the USA-Germany match!

Q21. From @nikolitso: Would offer odds for Basketball U20 European Championship

HoS: Most likely. **Note: Requests like these should go to market-request@pinnaclesports.com. We make sure they’re seen by the right eyes.**

Q22. From @Dennis7menace :@PinnacleSports What is your opinion about the ban of Suarez. Fair or strict?

HoS: That behaviour? He should never be allowed to play again.

Q23. From @algottfridsson : What do you do when you think a game is a fix, remove it or let it stay?

HoS: in most cases, we’ll remove it. We’re trying to protect our clients, so we remove if we have suspicions.

Q24. From @PuntingQuants : What’s more important: getting the opening line right or listening to your sharp clients?

HoS: Opening lines are often not sharp…we’re doing some guesswork there. It’s more important for us to listen to our sharp clients.

Q25. From @puntershangout:Hello, do you notice a lot of arbitration bets relative to your normal.

HoS: We have a lot of both. We certainly have more arbitrage customers than most sites do… Since, you know, we allow them.:)

Q26. From @SaintCal22 :How much does the Suarez ban change EPL title odds?

HoS: In the grand scheme, he’s not that important for those odds.

HoS: Thanks everyone, I have to get going. This was fun. We’ll do it again soon. Bet well.

*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.

Is the market efficient for the subsequent match following a final set tiebreak win?

Is the market efficient for the subsequent match following a final set tiebreak win?

By Dan Weston Jun 27, 2014

Tweet

Accumulated fatigue is a factor that Tennis players should avoid to give themselves the best chances of winning their subsequent matches. This article assesses whether playing a final set tiebreak – by definition a long match – in the ATP Tour has any impact on a player’s chances of winning their next match.

A final set tiebreak will almost always mean that a match has a long duration. Given that there will be 13 games played in the final set, a minimum of 25 games will have to be played in order to complete the match. Assuming that the ATP mean for games played per set precedes this final set tiebreak, a mean figure of around 32 games per match would be generated when a final set tie-break occurs.

Considering the ATP mean figure for games per match is much lower than this (around 23) playing 32 games per match requires much more energy to be expended by the two players playing a final set tiebreak. Therefore it is logical to assume that this will do the final set tiebreak winner no favours for their next match, having generally used more energy in their previous round.

The following table illustrates the statistics for the current top 70 players (as at 26th June 2014) on the ATP Tour for their subsequent match following a final set tiebreak. A hypothetical bet of 100 was applied to their subsequent match, with all prices used being Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices. Only ATP Tour and Tennis Masters Tournaments were sampled, and only main draw matches were used (no qualifiers). The data sample used was from 26th June 2013 to 26th June 2014:

Field

1.25

1.25-1.50

1.51-1.99

2.00-2.99

3.00+

Favourite

Underdog

Overall

Matches

4

14

10

26

34

28

60

88

Wins

2

12

6

10

7

20

17

37

Win %

50

85.71

60

38.46

20.59

71.43

28.33

42.05

P/L

-160

248

174

-248

-276

262

-524

-262

ROI

-40

17.71

17.40

-9.54

-8.12

9.36

-8.73

-2.98

What is immediately obvious from the table above is that there actually weren’t a huge sample of matches decided by a final set tiebreak – just 88 in the sample. From these 88 matches, 37 players won their subsequent match, achieving a win percentage of 42.05%. This sample generated a slight loss of -2.98%, which whilst being unimpressive, isn’t a huge disaster for a blind-backed scenario.

However, what is more useful is the huge discrepancy between how players performed when they were favourite in their next match, as opposed to being an underdog. Quite incredibly, more favourites (20) won their next match than underdogs (17), despite underdogs playing over twice as many matches. This generated a very nice return on investment – from a small sample – for favourites, but a significantly worse return for underdogs.

Therefore, based on the sample above, it would appear that the market under-rates the chances of a player after a final set tiebreak when they are favourite in their next match. This is logical as one of the many areas where a higher ranked player is better than a lower ranked player is their general fitness. Therefore it would appear that the ‘better’ player deals much better with this scenario.

During research, it was also very apparent that some players dealt much better than others with these situations.

Of the top players, Tomas Berdych’s record in final set tiebreaks was poor – losing 7-6 in the third set to Ivo Karlovic, Nicolas Almagro, and Vasek Pospisil. Igor Sijsling had a horrific record, winning a solitary final set tiebreak out of eight, but the big-serving Karlovic won all five of his final set tiebreaks in the last 12 months. Even more impressively, the Croat’s wins came when he was generously priced – against Tobias Kamke (2.34), Pablo Carreno-Busta (3.80), Daniel Brands (1.97), Berdych (4.63) and Denis Istomin (2.28). Jeremy Chardy also managed five final set tiebreak victories, but struggled with the consequences, with just one win out of those five subsequent matches, and another big-server, John Isner, managed four final set tiebreak wins from seven matches.

Despite underdogs performing badly overall, there were some high-priced winners in subsequent matches following a final set tiebreak.

The biggest priced win was Florian Mayer, who defeated Andy Murray in Doha when priced 6.72. Closely behind was Kei Nishikori, who defeated Roger Federer when priced at 5.97, and Edouard Roger-Vasselin, who got the better of Marin Cilic when priced at 5.67.

The worst defeat for a player after a final set tiebreak was Phillip Kohlschreiber’s recent defeat in the semi-finals on the grass of Halle to Alejandro Falla – priced at 1.18. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga’s loss to Robin Haase in the semi-finals of Vienna in October, priced 1.24, was the other match where a player priced under 1.25 lost after a preceding final set tiebreak.

It can be seen that tennis bettors should definitely consider the way a player won their previous match and whether accumulated fatigue is an issue for their subsequent match. Reacting accordingly to that is recommended, as part of a balanced betting strategy.

*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.

Brazil underperformed but still topped Group A

Brazil underperformed but still topped Group A

By Michael Gales Jul 3, 2014

Tweet

Brazil were expected to dominate their 2014 World Cup Group A and breeze through to the knockout stages, but only topped the group on goal difference. Read this 2014 World Cup Group A betting review for an insight into how the group turned out and how accurate the pre-tournament odds were.

2014 World Cup Group A betting review

2014 World Cup Group A final table

Nation

W

D

L

GF

GA

GD

Points

Brazil

2

1

0

7

2

5

7

Mexico

2

1

0

4

1

3

7

Croatia

1

0

1

6

6

0

3

Cameroon

0

0

3

1

9

-8

0

Brazil were huge 1.050 favourites to progress to the knockout stages on home soil. Despite an implied probability of 95.24% they topped the group on goal difference having won two and drew against Mexico.

However, given their odds they underperformed in Group A and were expected to claim a maximum of nine points – in reality they struggled against Croatia despite winning 3-1, and were unconvincing in a 0-0 draw with Mexico.

Mexico in comparison were always expected to compete with Croatia for the final qualifying position given the implied probability of 46.73% and 41.67% respectively. Cameroon however, performed as expected – losing all three games.

2014 World Cup Group A pre-tournament implied probability table

Position

Nation

Odds

Implied probability

Actual finishing position

1

Brazil

1.050

95.24%

1

2

Croatia

2.140

46.73%

3

3

Mexico

2.400

41.67%

2

4

Cameroon

4.850

20.62%

4

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

20 Unanswered Questions

20 Unanswered Questions

By Gary Wise Jul 7, 2014

Tweet

Our Head of Sportsbook has now done three Q&A sessions on Twitter, and unsurprisingly, there have been more questions than he’s had time to answer. In this article, Pinnacle Sports (PS) answers some of those questions in the interest of completion. Have a look to learn about betting, from strategy to business.

Q1. From @mkasslatter: Is there a book about sportsbetting you would recommend to bettors and bookmakers?

PS: Though not specifically about betting ‘Fooled by Randomness’ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a book every bettor should read.

Q2. From  @J_Chirico: How would you describe your most feared sports bettor and will you move lines because of 1 person?

PS: We have a number of clients who have consistently shown their knowledge needs to be respected. That respect can be manifested in line moves.

Q3. From @8_bakerboi_8: Who holds more sway/power in the office, the compilers, the researchers or the live line ‘inplay’ traders?

PS: This is something of a strange question for us, as there isn’t much of a power struggle to speak of. Our employees each have roles to play and are urged to maintain that specific focus. The efficiency of those parts contribute to the sum of the whole.

Q4. From @SD_Picks: Will lacrosse betting return??

PS: It’s an oft-repeated phrase in our Twitter Q&As, but volume drives our markets. Lacrosse, Cycling, Badminton, Curling, F1 props…the level of interest we see in these markets, as represented by the number and volume of bets, determines the amount of attention we’ll pay to them in the future. If you have a niche sport you’d like to see more of, one way you can help that cause is by submitting a request for it to market-request@pinnaclesports.com. That will ensure that your desires will be registered appropriately.

Q5. From @Pilsudski97: How big will this WC be for you guys compared to previous WCs + Euros, and which teams are good/bad results for u #pinnacle

PS: This question was asked back in April, but we can say now that the 2014 World Cup is the biggest event of all time for sports betting, by a large margin. We pledged in January that we’d offer $1 million limits for the finals because of our confidence in Brazil 2014’s scope; with all four quarterfinals seeing $500,000 limits, we’d likely have seen $1 million limits called for regardless of our promise.

Q6. From @MuckedNuts: How many of your dealers are current/former financial traders?

PS: From our Head of Sportsbook: “None. I prefer training people from the start and not having to work with preformed opinions”. A background in Game Theory or similar topics is a big plus.

Q7. From @JeffreyHahn1: How relevant is market size when considering accuracy of the market?

PS: Very relevant. The larger a market, the more opinions it accounts for. While bettors can sometimes find themselves following the crowd a little too much in those situations, a good general rule of thumb is that the larger the market, the sharper it is.

Q8. From @Terrell_7: What differentiates Pinnacle from other bookies, by them never cutting a punters account, limiting all betting?

PS: You answered your own question to an extent. We’re able to offer the best odds and highest limits while welcoming winners because we’re built around volume and effective market management. Some of our competitors are content to remove risk by offering large margins and shunning smart bettors. We’re happy to have our reputation instead, as this video explains.

Q9. From @basiljh: Will mobile site more closely resemble the site? Right now there seem to be no/few bets on mobile vs www screen

PS: A question from before our pre-World Cup mobile update. We’ve gotten great reviews on our improved mobile site. If you haven’t, have a look.

Q10. From @JMackie4: How big would you say your tennis product is in terms of liquidity and in sports betting? ie, 2nd behind soccer?

PS: Tennis is our second-biggest product after soccer, which is why we’ve expanded our offerings in recent months. We’ve also brought on widely respected tennis bettor/author Dan Weston to share his findings with our bettors in our ongoing efforts to help them educate themselves.

Q11. From @coolmarker18: I bet +2.5 sets in tennis, my player leads 2-0 by sets and their opponent retires in the third…my bet is void. Don’t you think this is stupid?

PS: We took this one to Head of Sportsbook. Here’s what he had to say:

“I can see both sides of the argument here. I prefer voiding the wagers on all retirements, but can see the argument to do it differently. Ultimately though, we feel the rule is fair; as often as it will work against you, it will work for you.”

We feel consistency is what matters most, and the present rules are the best way to offer that.

Q12. From @JSchouwerwou: How important is beating the closing line in NHL?

PS: Regardless of the sport, if you consistently beat our closing lines, you’re giving yourself a great opportunity for wealth.

Q13. From @MrRoyalW: Has PinnacleSports some risk in betting?

PS: Of course. Every bet comes with risks. That said, a large part of our volume-based business model is about managing that risk, something we do well.

Q14. From @drivetimepix: I know that you guys release the percentages of AMOUNT of bets on each side. I was wondering if you have considered releasing AMOUNT OF MONEY as a % on each side to the public? Thank you.

PS: You’ve probably noticed that we’ve given away a lot of secrets in recent years, but volume is too important to our model to disclose those numbers. We’ll keep looking for other ways to help though.

Q15. From @MrRoyalW: Why is Pinnacle Sports is the first site to open NBA lines everyday?

PS: A number of books look to us to assure the stability of their own lines. It’s something we take great pride in.

Q16. From @BartonicekJ: @PinnacleSports Is better way to bet according statistics analysis or according fundamental analysis?

PS: Any information is going to help you make a smart bet. Increasing the number of reliable sources of information you draw upon lowers the volatility of your predictions. In other words, both.

Q17. From @JSchouwerwou: When moving lines, is it strictly about money or does WHO that money is coming from factor in?

PS: Sharp money does help us form opinions, but we ultimately have to make the final decisions on those opinions.

Q18. From @bookierating: Can bettor earn money for long time by betting on sport if relying only on analysis and luck (no arbitrage, etc)?

PS: Yes. We have a number of bettors who do better than that. Our Head of Sportsbook admitted in his first Q&A that there are a number of bettors who average better than $300,000/month betting with us.

Q19. From @Danny_Dimes: Do you set Sharp lines and Retail lines for some markets or is it one price for everyone regardless?

PS: One price fits all.

Q20. From @_GreekWay_: Any plans to include UK horse racing?

PS: Not in the foreseeable future. Horse racing is a big mountain and other bookmakers have already conquered it. Trying to do so ourselves (when, admittedly, we’re not experts at present) represents a huge expenditure without guaranteed results. We’re happy with being the best at what we do; it allows us to keep margins to a minimum, which in turn keeps bettors happy.

*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.

Odds suggest Fury will maintain his unbeaten record

Odds suggest Fury will maintain his unbeaten record

By Calum Ward Jul 8, 2014

Tweet

Two of Britain’s toughest heavyweights, Dereck Chisora and Tyson Fury, will go toe-to-toe once again on July 26th for the vacant British and European heavyweight titles. Three years have passed since their brutal fight in July 2011, making this one of the most anticipated boxing rematches of the year. Read this Chisora vs. Fury II betting preview for the statistics, news and betting markets.

Chisora vs. Fury II fight statistics

Dereck Chisora

Name

Tyson Fury

30

Age

25

Harare, Zimbabwe

Birthplace

Manchester, UK

British

Nationality

British

6ft 1.5” (1.87m)

Height

6ft 9” (2.06m)

74” (188cm)

Reach

85” (216cm)

Orthodox

Stance

Orthodox

20-0-4 (13 wins by KO)

Career Record

22-0-0 (16 wins by KO)

Which boxer has taken the better path?

In the first bout Tyson Fury beat Dereck Chisora by a unanimous points decision after 12 ferocious rounds at Wembley Arena in July 2011. Fury, unbeaten in 22 fights, was 117-112, 117-112 and 118-111 on the three judges scorecards and looked relatively untroubled against a clearly overweight Chisora. The 30-year-old weighed in at a career high 261 pounds, but should be much better prepared for their upcoming rematch on July 26th having weighed in at 235 pounds in his more recent bouts.

Since that defeat, Chisora has faced Robert Helenius, Vitali Klitschko and David Haye; three of heavyweight boxing’s biggest names. Even though he lost all three of those fights, Chisora has pitted himself against the best in the business and will be more experienced than when he fought Fury back in 2011.

Fury on the other hand has kept his unbeaten record ticking over slowly but surely, with early knockout victories over Steve Cunningham and most recently Joey Abell in February 2014.

Bettors must decide whether or not Chisora’s new focus and journey against the division’s elite will ensure he is better placed to become the first boxer to beat Fury?

Chisora’s high-energy vs. Fury’s long reach

Tyson Fury is the 1.465* favourite for the upcoming rematch – which according to the odds give him a 68.26% chance of winning. In comparison Chisora can be backed at 2.800*, giving him a 35.71% chance of an upset.

When looking for value in our previous boxing previews – Pacquiao vs. Bradley II and Froch vs. Groves II – we explained how psychology could influence the outcome of a rematch by analysing loss aversion and regression to the mean. Ahead of Chisora vs. Fury II, the outcome of the fight could simply come down to the boxers’ personal statistics.

Not only is Fury 19cm taller than Chisora, he also has a 28cm longer reach, which will make it very difficult for Chisora to get inside and cause Fury real damage. David Haye (10cm), Vitali Klitschko (15cm) and Robert Helenius (13cm) all had significantly longer reaches than Chisora’s 188cm, and all three of these boxers managed to keep him at bay and pick up the victories.

On the other hand, Chisora may settle for the left handed jabs of Fury, and with the high-energy approach we have seen in his recent fights against Ondrej Pla, Edmund Gerber and Mark Scott, employ a strategic game plan to test Fury’s patience – let’s not forget, Fury had big fights with Klitschko and Haye cancelled which may have affected his preparation.

Could it go the distance again?

Chisora vs. Fury II betting will also be available via the OVER/UNDER market for total rounds. This is an interesting market for bettors because despite both boxers favouring a knockout, the previous fight between the pair went the full 12 rounds. Odds of 1.800* suggest the fight will go OVER 8.5 rounds again, while 2.130* is available if you believe the fight won’t last that long.

Both Chisora and Fury have fought eight times in 12 round fights, but their records are very different – Chisora has won 63% (5 of 8), while Fury has won 100% (8 of 8) – and bettors should be aware of this when selecting from the OVER/UNDER 8.5 rounds market.

Interestingly, when the fight has gone the distance Chisora has won one fight out of four, which was his most recent bout with Kevin Johnson back in February 2014. Fury may have won both of his fights – beating Chisora in July 2011 and Kevin Johnson in December 2012 – but he certainly favours the early knockout, five of which have come in under 8.5 rounds (63%). Three of Chisora’s victories have also come in under 8.5 rounds (60%), so bettors can expect these two fighters to explode when the first bell rings on July 26th.

With the British and European heavyweight titles on the line, as well as the fight being scheduled as a WBO world heavyweight title eliminator, bettors should consider all of these factors before selecting the winner of Chisora vs. Fury II.

Click here to see the latest Chisora vs. Fury II 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.