Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged • Hacker News Board

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#11

Post by GigabyteCoin » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #8

"Send enquires about this paper to our newly acquired private island in the Bahamas." :-) One of the most depressing things I realized when I learned to count cards, and confer upon myself a small but meaningful advantage in the game of Blackjack, was that the casinos simply ask you to leave if you win too much. That put an upper limit on the rate at which one could win. The folks who figure out slot machines have a…

I used to use the betfair platform until it they blocked themselves from being viewed in Canada for some strange reason right after they were purchased by ladbrokes I believe it was.

Anyways, after playing with them for a few years, I was horrified to learn about their 60% tax on consistent winners that they have dubbed a "premium charge".

Found some sort of edge to exploit and reap profits?

Betfair doesn't even care to talk to you to ask you what you are doing, they will just charge you 60% of your winnings once you go over a certain limit. [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/29/betfair-premiu...

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#12

Post by mason55 » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

utnick wrote: post #10

There has to be more to this story. I would like to hear the bookmakers side of this. Perhaps the researchers were scripting or triggered some other kind of security tripwire. Winning $900 split across several different bookmakers is absolutely nothing in the sports betting industry. William Hill, one of the companies that the researchers claim restricted them is a multi billion dollar company. They aren't sweating s…

My guess is that it’s the manner by which they were winning. Thirty $50 bets per week over five months is over 500 bets. That’s not the long run but winning at an 8.5% ROI over that many bets is probably enough for the house to realize they’re somehow a winning player even if the stakes aren’t huge.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#13

Post by mherdeg » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

Not mentioned in the abstract is that they also used real money:

> During that period we obtained an accuracy of 47.% [sic] and a profit of $957.50 across 265 bets, equivalent to a 8.5% return (Table 1, Figure 3).

For some reason the "ok but how much did you ACTUALLY MAKE?" is always my favorite part of this kind of business or economics literature.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#14

Post by downandout » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

mikkom wrote: post #7

downandout wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rigged" is the wrong word. What it essentially says is that all of the data that a professional could reasonably analyze is already baked into the odds that bookies initially set, and if those odds stayed the same until bets were no longer being taken on the event, sports betting would be consistently unprofitable because of the 10% "juice" that most bookmakers charge. However, the odds do not stay the same. Once th…

No, rigged is exactly the right word. From the paper: > Our strategy proved profitable in a 10-year historical simulation using closing odds, a 6-month historical simulation using minute to minute odds, > and a 5-month period during which we staked real money with the bookmakers . > > Our results demonstrate that the football betting market is inefficient ‒ bookmakers can be consistently beaten across thousands of ga…

The fact that they limit the accounts of successful bettors doesn't mean that it is "rigged". It simply means that they reserve the right to do business with whom they choose.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#15

Post by utnick » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #12

utnick wrote: post #10

There has to be more to this story. I would like to hear the bookmakers side of this. Perhaps the researchers were scripting or triggered some other kind of security tripwire. Winning $900 split across several different bookmakers is absolutely nothing in the sports betting industry. William Hill, one of the companies that the researchers claim restricted them is a multi billion dollar company. They aren't sweating s…

My guess is that it’s the manner by which they were winning. Thirty $50 bets per week over five months is over 500 bets. That’s not the long run but winning at an 8.5% ROI over that many bets is probably enough for the house to realize they’re somehow a winning player even if the stakes aren’t huge.

Sportsbooks in general don't mind winning players though, especially big ones. They make money off the vig and move odds to get equal money on each side of the bet so that they'll make money either way.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#16

Post by downandout » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #8

"Send enquires about this paper to our newly acquired private island in the Bahamas." :-) One of the most depressing things I realized when I learned to count cards, and confer upon myself a small but meaningful advantage in the game of Blackjack, was that the casinos simply ask you to leave if you win too much. That put an upper limit on the rate at which one could win. The folks who figure out slot machines have a…

the casinos simply ask you to leave if you win too much.

I was actually backed off from the first place I went to after I learned how to count cards while I was losing. If the pit boss or dealers know how to count themselves and identify you as a counter, they want no part of it. In most cases, they'll either "flat bet" you (tell you that your initial bet is your maximum), or they'll tell you that you cannot play blackjack there. Actual barrings usually don't occur until the second or third offense.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#17

Post by pocketsquare2 » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #14

mikkom wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, rigged is exactly the right word. From the paper: > Our strategy proved profitable in a 10-year historical simulation using closing odds, a 6-month historical simulation using minute to minute odds, > and a 5-month period during which we staked real money with the bookmakers . > > Our results demonstrate that the football betting market is inefficient ‒ bookmakers can be consistently beaten across thousands of ga…

The fact that they limit the accounts of successful bettors doesn't mean that it is "rigged". It simply means that they reserve the right to do business with whom they choose.

They are artificially manipulating the market. That's about as textbook rigging as putting three masts on a ship.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#18

Post by SubiculumCode » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

I don't see why we cannot have completely distributed betting platform using para-mutual betting strategy that collects and distributes bets and winnings on the basis of publicly reported sports results with no take-out.

I prefer para-mutual rather than a house deciding the odds. It is a more free-market approach. It has been used in horse racing, but the takeout has been too large which makes it hard to be profitable.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#19

Post by emerongi » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #12

utnick wrote: post #10

There has to be more to this story. I would like to hear the bookmakers side of this. Perhaps the researchers were scripting or triggered some other kind of security tripwire. Winning $900 split across several different bookmakers is absolutely nothing in the sports betting industry. William Hill, one of the companies that the researchers claim restricted them is a multi billion dollar company. They aren't sweating s…

My guess is that it’s the manner by which they were winning. Thirty $50 bets per week over five months is over 500 bets. That’s not the long run but winning at an 8.5% ROI over that many bets is probably enough for the house to realize they’re somehow a winning player even if the stakes aren’t huge.

They're not a "winning player" in the usual sense. The casino wants players to bet on a certain outcome in some cases (in order to reduce risk, presumably) and therefore hands over the winning strategy on a silver platter.

I feel like the casinos just want those kinds of bets to be small. They don't want to over-correct in the other direction. By limiting these players that specifically make these kinds of bets, they reduce the risk of a big amount of money being bet in a short amount of time on the "winning" strategy.

Re: Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged

#20

Post by valuearb » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

utnick wrote: post #15

mason55 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that it’s the manner by which they were winning. Thirty $50 bets per week over five months is over 500 bets. That’s not the long run but winning at an 8.5% ROI over that many bets is probably enough for the house to realize they’re somehow a winning player even if the stakes aren’t huge.

Sportsbooks in general don't mind winning players though, especially big ones. They make money off the vig and move odds to get equal money on each side of the bet so that they'll make money either way.

They hate “sharps”, winners who win through skill exploiting lines, they love those who win by chance. Sharps will continue to bleed them, the lucky fish often become whales whose luck fades over time.