Posts Tagged ‘Odds’

A lot of interesting ideas in this article, and it is hopeful that the federal government’s proposed changes to sports betting advertising will have a positive impact on the next generation of young sports fans so that they aren’t indoctrinated to believe that gambling is intrinsically linked with sporting events in this country.

Beaner

 

Wide-ranging ban on gambling ads during sport broadcasts will help those with problems

The Turnbull Government is reportedly considering banning the advertising of gambling during televised sporting broadcasts.

This is not a new idea: Senator Nick Xenophon has long championed a ban, as have many who work with problem gamblers.

It has been reported that more than one-in-six ads shown during AFL matches are gambling-related.

So, could advertising be linked with rates of problem gambling?

Evidence suggests ads have an impact

Increases in problem gambling linked to sports betting have been reported in recent years, particularly among young men.

The numbers of 18-to-25-year-old men with problems related to sports betting doubled between 2012 and 2015 at the University of Sydney’s Gambling Treatment Clinic (where I work).

At the same time, gambling odds and prices have become a central part of sporting culture.

Campaign to dissuade young gamblers

An awareness campaign that ran during the AFL finals series, aimed to counter a rise in problem teenage gamblers.

The “gamblification” of sport is now seen as both a normal and central component of it.

In pre-game reporting, the prices and odds are seen as being as important as player injuries and weather conditions.

Being able to draw a clear line between increased promotion of gambling and rates of problem gambling is not easy.

Given there are always multiple factors why someone develops a gambling problem, it is never as clear-cut as blaming advertising.

However, some evidence exists to suggest advertising has impacts on problem gamblers.

Interview research and large-scale survey work have both suggested that gambling ads during sport strongly affect many problem gamblers by increasing their desire to gamble when trying to cut down.

Therefore, restrictions on advertising may be effective in helping those with problems to manage their urges to gamble.

Another widespread concern about gambling advertising during sports broadcasts is the impact it might be having on young people.

There is evidence this advertising can have an impact.

A study of Canadian adolescents found the majority had been exposed to gambling advertising.

It also found this advertising was leading to the belief that the chance of winning was high, and that gambling was an easy way to make money.

These findings are particularly concerning. In our work with problem gamblers, we have found these beliefs are crucial to the development of gambling problems.

Typically, when examining a problem gambler’s history, we find they were exposed to gambling at a young age and developed positive attitudes toward gambling at the time.

In particular, a distorted belief in the likelihood of winning appears to be a key driver in many of our patients who developed problems.

Thus, advertising that promotes the idea that gambling is an easy way to make money is likely to prime our kids for developing gambling problems in the future.

What we can learn from tobacco ad bans

Would a ban on the advertising of gambling during sport broadcasts change attitudes toward gambling and gambling behaviour?

Here, evidence on the impacts of tobacco advertising is instructive.

Tobacco advertising has been progressively restricted or banned in many countries. Thus, considerable evidence is available to make conclusions.

There appears to be clear evidence that tobacco advertising does result in increased rates of smoking in adolescents.

It has also been found that bans on tobacco advertising appear to be effective in reducing tobacco use — but only in the case of complete bans.

In contrast, attempts to limit bans on advertising to certain mediums — such as banning ads on TV — appear not to be effective, as this simply results in increases in tobacco advertising in non-banned media (in print or on billboards, for instance).

This suggests that for any restriction of gambling advertising to be effective, it needs to be widespread.

Such displacement has already been seen with gambling. There is evidence of increased social media promotion of gambling, which has resulted in increases in positive attitudes toward gambling in those exposed to these promotions.

There is not yet any demonstrated definitive link between increases in gambling advertising during sports and problem gambling.

However, the research that has been conducted indicates that advertising may result in increased gambling by problem gamblers and increases in distorted beliefs about gambling in young people.

If the Government chooses to go down the path of increasing restrictions on gambling advertising, it is important that any restrictions are wide-ranging enough to have a clear impact on gambling behaviours and attitudes.

Support is available through the Gambler’s Help website gamblershelp.com.au or by calling the free Gambling Help Line on 1800 858 858.

Dr Christopher Hunt is a clinical psychologist working at the University of Sydney’s School of Psychology. He has worked at the University’s Gambling Treatment Clinic since 2007.

Originally published in The Conversation

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-17/why-all-gambling-ads-should-be-banned-during-sporting-matches/8363232

Advertisements

In a move that probably doesn’t go far enough, the federal government has instigated a policy so that no gambling ads will be allowed before 8:30pm on Australian TV.  I personally feel gambling advertising is a blight on the enjoyment of sport, especially when commercial TV and radio sell out to the sports betting agencies, as the AFL has done, to line their pockets at the expense of problem gamblers.  Listening to 3MMM makes me feel ill with their sponsors seemingly more important than the games they are supposed to be covering.  Maybe one day our kids will be able to just enjoy being sports fans without constantly being bombarded with odds and deals and specials as well.

Beaner

 

Gambling advertising to be banned during live sporting events

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed the Government will ban gambling advertising before 8.30pm during live sporting events, and for five minutes before and after the start of play.

ABC News revealed last month that the plan had been taken to Cabinet.

It faced a backlash from the executives of some of the nation’s biggest sporting codes, who argued restricting gambling advertising would slash the value of the television rights their codes attract.

But speaking in the United States before his flight back to Australia on Saturday morning, Mr Turnbull said the plan would go ahead.

“Parents around Australia will be delighted when they know that during football matches, and cricket matches, live sporting events before 8:30pm, there will be no more gambling ads,” he said.

“There are no gambling ads allowed before 8:30pm generally, but there’s been an exception for a long time, of live sporting events.”

Mr Turnbull said the ban would not apply to racing.

Executives from the AFL and NRL had been lobbying Communications Minister Mitch Fifield to scrap the plans.

ABC News had also been told Cricket Australia was pushing against the change.

After 8:30pm, the status quo will remain.

“The gambling companies have actually been at the forefront of calling for just these types of restrictions,” Senator Fifield said.

“The Responsible Wagering Council have been urging the Government to look at this area because they recognise that there’s a need for change.”

Ban a ‘good, big first step’: Xenophon

The gambling policy could help secure Senate crossbench support for other media reforms dealing with ownership and reach restrictions.

Senator Nick Xenophon has long campaigned for restrictions to gambling advertising, and commands three votes in the Upper House.

He described the announcement as a “good, big first step”, but said he wanted further protections put in place to force regional broadcasters to produce local content as part of any broader media shakeup.

The Greens seemed unlikely to support the measures, while Labor maintained it needed to see the detail.

“We do want to see a diversity of voices available in the Australian media environment,” Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said.

“We need to see the details of what the Government is proposing, what we frequently see is that Malcolm Turnbull delivers less than people expect.”

The Coalition has also proposed changes to the “anti-siphoning list” which makes sure certain sports are broadcast on free-to-air networks, giving pay television a better chance of bidding for major events.

Government ‘scraps licence fees’ to fund lost ad revenue

The nation’s free-to-air television networks had also raised concerns it would eat into their advertising revenue, and demanded their Commonwealth licence fees be cut to fund the losses.

Networks pay about $130 million per year for their broadcast licences.

Under the new model, that would be replaced by what is called a “spectrum charge” of about $40 million.

“In the last budget I cut free-to-air licence fees by 25 per cent, my predecessors have also cut licence fees,” Senator Fifield said.

“So it’s been something that both sides of politics have recognised that the licence fees are something that are really from a bygone era.

“What we have done is taken the opportunity to not only provide a shot in the arm for free-to-air broadcasters, but we have taken this opportunity to provide a community dividend in the form of further gambling advertising restrictions.”

Free TV Australia said it was a “tremendous” package that had been agreed to by the industry.

“There’s nowhere else in the world that licence fees are charged like this, it was a complete anomaly,” chairman Harold Mitchell said.

Australia’s third largest network, Network Ten, had been hoping for a cut in its licence fees as it battles to survive in the tough television advertising market.

“The Government’s package provides very welcome, immediate financial relief for all commercial free-to-air television broadcasters,” Network Ten chief executive Paul Anderson said.

“It provides a boost for local content and the local production sector.

“Recent financial results and announcements from across the Australian media industry clearly demonstrate that this is a sector under extreme competitive pressure from the foreign-owned tech media giants.

“This package is not just about Ten or free-to-air television. It is about ensuring that there is a future for Australian media companies.”

By political reporter Matthew Doran, Updated 6 May 2017

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-17/why-all-gambling-ads-should-be-banned-during-sporting-matches/8363232

With the 2017 AFL season nearly upon us, the sports betting agencies are gearing up for another onslaught of advertising across TV, Pay TV, radio, newspapers and the internet.  It really depresses me that our local game is now in bed with the betting agencies, so closely linked that the AFL relies on the money, while at the same time warning the AFL players of the dangers of gambling.  It was pleasing that some of the players have made comments about this irony recently, and with many AFL players now family men, they are also acutely aware of the responsibility they have to raise their own children in a gambling free environment – which is difficult to avoid when their kids are watching daddy on TV and there is a sports betting ad or odds update during every commercial break after a goal has been kicked.

GAMBLING advertising during AFL games is “out of control” according to Western Bulldogs premiership captain Easton Wood.

Wood took to Twitter during the telecast of Friday night’s AFLW game between the Bulldogs and Adelaide to raise his concerns and asked fans whether they agreed.

Wood’s tweet was retweeted more than 1000 times and had more than 2700 likes. Most of the replies were strong in their support, however some queried whether he would be prepared to play for less money if the gaming industry pulled its financial support for the game.

In a note attached to the tweet, he said the Bulldogs this week had their annual education session with the AFL, which he described as “both informative and well run.”

But he questioned why there was so much gambling advertising if gambling was such a big issue that it required an annual information session from the League.

“Why – as an industry – do we support the onslaught of gambling advertising you’re now faced with when watching an AFL game?” he wrote in the tweet.

“The obvious issue here is the effect this advertising has on children every time we pull on our boots. The big question is do we think the normalization of gambling – particularly to kids – is acceptable in this day and age?”

Friday night’s match was broadcast live on Fox Footy in Victoria, but the gambling industry advertises across all forms of live sport. The industry standard is that 10 per cent of advertising during live sport broadcasts can promote sports betting.

c4sz-bfuoaaoflh

Easton Wood

RESOLVING the issues surrounding gambling in the AFL won’t be easy but the conversation needs to happen, Geelong veteran Harry Taylor says.

Taylor said it was a concern to him that the eldest of his three children was able to name the gambling-related advertisements he saw when watching sport on TV.

However he said further education and discussion were critical if answers were to be found on the appropriate relationship between gambling and professional sport.

“When my eldest can name a lot of the ads on TV, that is a bit of a worry,” Taylor said.

“It’s certainly something that we need to keep talking about [and] educating people about. It’s not as simple as just cutting them out of the AFL.”

Western Bulldogs premiership skipper Easton Wood put the issue back on the agenda at the weekend when he questioned the level of gambling advertising during televised AFL games.

Wood wrote on social media: “Do we think the normalisation of gambling – particularly to kids – is acceptable in this day and age?”

Taylor said more education was needed for AFL players and society in general.

$814 million was lost on sportsbetting in 2014-15, which equates to $2 230 137 being lost by punters on sports EVERY DAY in Australia.

So if you think you can beat the system then well done and good luck for the future, as the hard evidence clearly shows that a lot of money is being lost by people betting on sports.  With the odds structures always favouring the sports betting agencies, they are taking their cut whether you win or lose, and then with the fickle nature of sports results, picking a winner is still no easier.

The only recommendation I can make to those who enjoy a punt on sports is to bet smart, look for value and ‘good bets’ and seek help if you are losing more than you are winning beyond the budget you have set for yourself.

Beaner

 

Punters lose $23 Billion

Richard Willingham and Benjamin Preiss
Published: August 22, 2016 – 8:02PM

Australian punters lost nearly $23 billion last year, with a 30 per cent growth in sports betting helping to drive a continued rise in annual gambling losses.

New Australian Gambling Statistics figures show Australians lost $1241 per head in 2014-15, with poker machines still the biggest cause of punter losses with $11.6 billion lost, an increase of 4.9 per cent.

The continued growth of punter losses reignited calls for state and federal governments to get serious about tackling problem gambling through action on sports betting advertising and pokies.

The annual compilation of all state and territory data shows that total expenditure, or gambler losses, hit $22.7 billion in 2014-15, an increase of 7.7 per cent on the previous financial year.

There has been an explosion in sports betting, with the sector growing by 30.1 per cent in 12 months – with predictions the exponential growth will continue.

But sports betting is still one of the smallest segments of the market, worth $814 million, compared to pokies, racing ($2.8 billion), and Lotto ($1.7 billion).

Traditional betting on racing was the smallest growing sector at just 2.7 per cent.

The Victorian government on Sunday announced a ban on betting ads near schools and on public transport, while Canberra is moving to crack down on offshore bookies, as well as strengthen consumer protection for local online punters.

There are also renewed calls from Senator Nick Xenophon, the Greens and Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie for poker machine reform.

Gambling losses in total for Victoria hit almost $5.8 billion in the 2014-15, with poker machine losses surpassing $2.5 billion, propping up Treasury coffers by more than $1 billion.

In NSW, punter losses hit $8.9 billion, with $5.7 billion lost on the pokies alone, sports betting worth $162 million and racing $945 million.

Across the nation casinos raked in $5.1 billion of gambler losses, with Melbourne’s Crown Casino hauling in $1.8 billion.

Monash University Public Health expert Charles Livingstone said the growth in sports betting losses was “phenomenal”.

“It demonstrates why we need to better regulate promotion and advertising. Otherwise we’re facing big growth in gambling problems and harm from young men and women,” Dr Livingstone said.

“But the 600-pound gorilla of Australian gambling is still the pokies: $12 billion in losses per year, and still growing, year after year. If we’re worried by sports betting, we should be 13 times more worried about the pokies.”

Alliance for Gambling Reform spokesman Tim Costello said state governments could fix the “poker machine madness”

“[That is] if any of them really cared about the issue,” he said.

The Australian Gambling Statistics 2014-15 shows that in Victoria total per person gambling losses hit $1250. Pokies losses was the biggest segment with $558 lost per Victorian.

In NSW, per person losses were higher at $1517.

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge said the rate of problem gambling in the online sector was three times that of other areas.

“Many Australians love to gamble but we have to make sure the gambling environment is a safe one – that’s why we are cracking down on illegal offshore gambling providers and introducing much strong consumer protection for online gambling,” Mr Tudge said.

Deakin University associate professor of public health, Samantha Thomas, suspected sports betting had grown on the back of heavy marketing.

“While not all losses equal harm, a lot of them do. It’s time for governments to start to seriously consider the factors that are contributing to these growing losses and implement effective evidenced-based strategies to reduce harm,” she said.

“This includes addressing the factors from industry, such as prolific advertising or high intensity poker machines, that may be contributing to harm. Clearly, ‘gamble responsibly’ strategies are not having an impact on reducing losses or preventing harm.”

Victorian Gaming Regulation Minister Marlene Kairouz said the state government shared the community’s concerns about problem gambling. She said the government had invested $150 million over four years to support problem gambling services.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/australian-punters-lose-23-billion-half-on-the-pokies-20160822-gqyiz5.html

My mate Mikey nailed a nice return on the AFL this week, where he bet $25 @ 41-1 on the Richmond Tigers making the 8 back on the 22nd July 2014.  At the time Mikey laid the bet the Tiges were 12th on the AFL ladder and 3 games behind the team in 8th spot, and only 2 weeks before that they were equal last with only 3 wins from 13 matches.  But they had just beaten Port Adelaide comfortably who were 3rd on  the ladder which meant they had now won 3 games in a row.  The other factor against the bet was that no team in the history of the AFL had ever made finals after a 3 and 10 start to the season.  So in reality the odds should have been much higher!

When Mikey texted through his bet to me, which we’d been joking about putting on, I thought he was being ambitious, but it wasn’t impossible to win, and to bet $25 with a possible return of $1025 seemed reasonable given Richmond’s position (I’m also a mad Tiges supporter). Some of our friends weren’t so favourable though when I mentioned Mikey’s bet, where everyone basically said he was crazy and there was absolutely no chance the Tigers could make the 8, that we were dreaming, and most said so using much more colourful language.

Well the Tigers continued to win game after game, while teams above us lost crucial games and couldn’t handle the pressure, and on Saturday in the last game of the home and away season, they pulled off a mighty victory over the competition leaders the Sydney Swans by 3 points to make it 9 wins in a row and with it they secured 8th spot on the ladder.  We were watching it live at The Rose in Fitzroy in a packed house of Richmond fans, and Mikey felt sick from about the first bounce onwards, but the Tigers didn’t let us down and neither did Sportsbet, who dutifully paid out on the bet soon after the game ended.

The fairytale ride for Richmond fans isn’t over yet with the first week of the finals seeing the mighty Tigers play Port Adelaide over there in SA, but the icing has already been put on the cake with Mikey landing a nice return on his speculative bet.  I can only hope that other Tiger fans loaded up on them back in June or July and were also celebrating Tiger-styles Saturday evening, and it has given me renewed confidence that my Dusty/ Jack/ Tigers – Brownlow/ Coleman/ Flag – treble will become a reality in 2015.

Beaner

The Martingale betting system has been around since the 18th Century where it originated in France, and is a simple one in principal.  You place a bet on a 2-1 outcome.  If you win, you double what you bet.  If you lose, you double your bet, and you keep doing this until you win, where you will win back all your losses plus make a profit of your initial bet.  After the win you reset and start again.  The Martingale system also assumes that you have an infinite bank roll and that there is no table limit or a limit to how much you can bet.  Let’s take a look at an example:

You bet $10 at 2-1 to win $20 – a $10 profit.

Bet $10 – lose

Bet $20 – lose

Bet $40 – lose

Bet $80 – lose

Bet $160 – win $320

Now if you look at the bet amounts, they are $10 more than the sum of all previous bets, which is how much profit you are going to make when you finally breakthrough for the win. $10 + $20 + $40 + $80 = $150 (lost), plus the $160 you bet = $310, and you win $320 for a $10 profit.

This system was commonly used to play roulette betting on either black or red, but you don’t get a pure 2-1 return as there is a zero or double zero on the wheel which yields no win for either red or black.  This is the house edge imbedded in the odds, so you also have to overcome that when chasing your profit.  You may also find that if you suffer a losing streak you will quickly reach the table limit for how much you are allowed to bet.  Say you happen to lose 10 bets in a row; with the 11th bet you will be wagering $10240 to make a $10 profit.  And losing streaks happen! So if you can find me a gambler who is willing to bet $10240 to be $10 up, you’re finding me a fool.

$10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320, $640, $1280, $2560, $5120, $10240 for the 11th bet.

Sports Betting Variation

This system can easily be applied to sports betting, using the multi-bet with favourites with a win/loss result to get to your 2-1 or more odds for each bet.  There is some merit in this if you think you can tip winners consistently, and you may also feel that you have some control over the result as you can pick the teams you want in your multi-bet.

Let’s look at the simplest ways to get to 2-1.  These are some of the variations you could use for a 2-leg multi if you wanted to cap the fav at 1.7 to get just over the 2-1 odds:

1.7 x 1.2 = 2.04

1.65 x 1.25 = 2.06

1.6 x 1.3 = 2.08

1.55 x 1.35 = 2.09

1.55 x 1.3 = 2.02

1.5 x 1.4 = 2.1

1.5 x 1.35 = 2.03

1.45 x 1.45 = 2.1

1.45 x 1.4 = 2.03

Of course you could back 1.7 x 1.7 to get odds of 2.89, or back just the one outsider at 2.2 if you thought it had a good chance of winning, but basically you’d want to ensure that you’re 2-leg multi yields more than 2-1 each and every bet.  Why only 2-legs?  Well there are 4 possible outcomes for 2 head to head matches, but 8 possible outcomes for 3 head to head matches.  To get a return of 2-1 on a 3-leg multi which has 8 possible results is increasing your risk of losing dramatically.

Another approach is to bet on a single soccer match, with the fav at about 2-1.  Now this may seem more difficult as there are 3 outcomes for a soccer game (home win/ draw/ away win), but as mentioned there are 4 outcomes for a 2-leg multi, so you are actually reducing your possible outcomes by one by betting on a lone soccer match.  Now a 2-1 fav in the soccer isn’t guaranteed to win, but you know what, how many short priced favs in the soccer have cost you a multi-bet when the match has ended in a frustrating draw or even an upset loss.  Never forget there are no certainties and you are gambling with every bet, so you may as well risk a good return on your wager.

From here it is simply a matter of choosing your starting stake, and being disciplined in your betting to stick to the system.  To lose money, you’d have to endure a losing streak where one of the two favs loses for a prolonged period of time in the 2-leg multi approach, or your 2-1 soccer fav keeps getting rolled.  If you know your sport and have a good strike rate as a tipster, then this system could be for you.  But buyer beware; it doesn’t take long in a losing streak to be betting large amounts of money, and if your bankroll isn’t very deep, you could find yourself in a hole very quickly.  You’d also want to find out what the max bet is with your sports bet agency to know how many losses you could endure based on your starting amount.

Let’s say you had a bank roll of $2000 and decided to start with a base bet of $50.  Now assuming the worst and you have a horror run with 5 losing bets, you won’t be able to place the 6th bet to try and recoup your losses thus far, as you would be required to bet $1600 but only have $450 left.

$50, $100, $200, $400, $800 = $1550 down after 5 losing bets.

This is assuming a minimum of one upset a week for 5 consecutive weeks, but if you’ve read the blog or have any experience in sports betting, there is absolutely no guarantee that a favourite will win, no matter how short the odds are.  UPSETS HAPPEN!

I don’t know about you, but I’d be starting to crack after only 3 consecutive losses starting with $50, where I’d have to be betting $400 just to make a $50 profit.

So if you are a gun tipster and think you can avoid the upset regularly, then the Martingale approach to sports betting will make you money over time.  My personal belief though is that you are still gambling, and it only takes the one seemingly impossible losing streak to wipe out all your gains and more when you either exceed your bank roll or you reach the max bet the bookie will take.

Beaner

This is the formula to calculate the vigorish percentage for three-way events:

v = 100 * [(1/p + 1/q + 1/t) – 1] / (1/p + 1/q + 1/t)

Where v = vigorish, and p, q and t are the decimal payouts for each outcome.

This formula is most usefully applied to calculating the vigorish imbedded in the odds of a soccer game, where there are three result possibilities; the home win, the draw and the away win.

To see how this formula works, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at the differences in the vigorish collected by 3 different sports bet agencies for the same soccer match.

 

UEFA Champions League 18th September 2013: Manchester United v Bayer Leverkusen

TAB Sportsbet:  1.62/ 3.75/ 5.00

Sportsbet:  1.83/ 3.40/ 4.75

Bet365:  1.83/ 3.60/ 5.00

 

Using the above formula, the vig results are as follows:

TAB Sportsbet Vigorish

P = 1.62, q = 3.75, t = 5.00

v = 100 * [(1/p + 1/q + 1/t) – 1] / (1/p + 1/q + 1/t)

v = 100 * [(0.6173 + 0.2667 + 0.2) – 1] / (0.6173 + 0.2667 + 0.2)

v = 100 * [1.084 – 1] / 1.084

v = 100 * 0.07749

v = 7.75%

 

Sportsbet Vigorish

P = 1.83, q = 3.4, t = 4.75

v = 100 * [(1/p + 1/q + 1/t) – 1] / (1/p + 1/q + 1/t)

v = 100 * [(0.5464 + 0.2941 + 0.2105) – 1] / (0.5464 + 0.2941 + 0.2105)

v = 100 * [1.051 – 1] / 1.051

v = 100 * 0.04853

v = 4.85%

 

Bet365 Vigorish

P = 1.83, q = 3.60, t = 5.00

v = 100 * [(1/p + 1/q + 1/t) – 1] / (1/p + 1/q + 1/t)

v = 100 * [(0.5464 + 0.2778 + 0.2) – 1] / (0.6173 + 0.2778 + 0.2)

v = 100 * [1.0242 – 1] / 1.0242

v = 100 * 0.02363

v = 2.36%

So it is easy to see from these calculations that TAB Sportsbet is taking the most tax per bet on this game, while Bet365 is taking the least.

The other appealing figure from these odds surveyed is the 3.75 being offered for the draw by TAB Sportsbet.  If you are interested in betting on the soccer draw like I am, it would be in your interests to shop around to ensure you get the best odds for the draw on the matches you want to bet on.

The difference in odds is significant enough to warrant chasing the best price, and if you have learnt anything from the Champ Bros blog so far, you will understand that it is difficult to make a consistent profit from sports betting, so any edge you can find over the bookies will pay dividends in the long run.

The next post is going to examine the difference between Vigorish and Overround, as these terms are often interchanged incorrectly as they actually have different values.

Beaner

The reasons for why people gamble are many and varied and there is no magic blanket that can be thrown over the gambling population that has a universal explanation for their motivation.  One of the reasons should be to make more money than you gamble, which should be the goal of every punter.  But often it isn’t.  People gamble for many reasons, and making money isn’t always the number one agenda.  Is it fun to lose money to the sports bet outlets regularly?  I wouldn’t think so, but it should still be fun trying to win money consistently and land your occasional white whale.  When it’s no longer fun and dissatisfaction dominates your gambling emotions, you should be examining your motivation for betting.

The Champ Bros have always found it is more fun to be winning money than to be losing it.  It is very frustrating for us to lose money, as Kenny will attest to this year and I have experienced in many previous years.  We don’t see the point in betting money and not caring about losing.  This is not the attitude we carry into the challenge of trying to make a profit from sports betting.  We want to win, and we want to find the strategy which gives us a chance of winning.  And this isn’t easy.  We don’t kid ourselves about this and openly say from the outset that turning a consistent profit is difficult, where most years breaking even is a good result.  But buyer beware, as ‘breaking even’ is actually winning more than you are spending.

Picking winners and finding ‘good bets’ is just the beginning to staying in front and maintaining a profit for the long haul. To do this you also have to beat the bookmaker’s edge (aka vigorish/ vig or take or juice, or in poker terms, the rake), which means that you have to win more than merely breaking even to compensate for what you are giving to the sports bet agency EVERY SINGLE BET.  Just as poker players have to beat other players PLUS the casino rake and time charge to make money over time, the sports bet punter has to pick the winners and surpass the bookies vig as well.

I always look at a head-to-head match as having two possible outcomes.  This is important as the odds often distract the punter from this reality. Ideally you would want to get 2-1 on every bet you make on a head-to-head match; you bet $10 and win $20 if you get it right (which includes the $10 you wagered).  No one else takes a cut of this money and your win is based solely on picking the winning team.  But the book makers would have you believe that no two teams are ever evenly matched (or rarely so).  If you go through all the head-to-head sports it is very rare that two teams will have the same odds.  Have a look through the matches in the AFL, NRL, NFL, MLB, NBA, WNBA, NBL etc.  It is uncommon to find two teams with the same odds to win.

And when you do, you will see the bookmaker’s vigorish straight away.  Below is a typical list of odds for head-to-head games from a selection of Australian sports betting agencies (this list is for the MLB):

Bet365:  1.95/1.95

Centrebet:  1.93/1.93

Sportingbet:  1.93/1.93

Sportsbet:  1.92/1.92

IASbet:  1.92/1.92

Unibet:  1.91/1.91

Tom Waterhouse:  1.91/1.91

Luxbet:  1.91/1.91

TAB Sportsbet:  1.87/1.87

As you can see, TAB Sportsbet generally has the lowest returns of all the agencies, but ironically is probably the most popular in Australia.

Note: I couldn’t always find the basic head-head odds at bet365, but I think they call it the ‘Money Line’ and it is at 1.95 v 1.95 (it also shows up as ‘to win’ and ‘result’ with some sports too).

 

With the Tennis qualifiers, there is a drop in the odds offered compared to what is offered above, which was for Major League Baseball, so there is some variance between sports for what odds the agencies will offer when they deem it to be an even contest.

E.g. for the ATP Petange Challenger Qualifiers (9th Sept 2013), the head-to-head odds below were available. As you can see, they are significantly lower than what is offered above for the MLB.

Sportsbet:  1.87/1.87

Centrebet:  1.87/1.87

Sportingbet:  1.87/1.87

Tom Waterhouse:  1.86/1.86

Bet365:  1.83/1.83

My guess as to why this is the case?  The tennis players involved would be relative unknowns and hard to find any form lines on, so the betting agencies offer these matches with lower returns to protect themselves from match fixing, which would be easier to achieve with individuals than team events at this level.  Tanking or not, Bet365 is making 8.5% on any bets for this match, regardless of who wins (see below).

The other easy way to see what the different sports bet agencies are offering for an even bet is to look at the line betting.  When they offer the line, you will see the return for either team will usually be the same, as they have squared them up by offering the points difference.

Vigorish

What all this basically means is that the bookies are making money on EACH and EVERY bet you make, even if you win.

If Kenny and I both pick a team in a match deemed to be even, say with TAB Sportsbet at 1.87, and we each bet $10, one of us stands to win $18.70.  TAB Sportsbet gets $20 out of us, and then gives the winner $18.70, keeping $1.30 on the transaction, which is 6.5% profit for them.  So you can imagine if $100 000 was bet on the match with an even spread of bets between both teams, TAB Sportsbet would make $6500 REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME.  Think about that, wouldn’t that be nice.

Where it gets interesting is when the matches aren’t evenly matched.  Say TAB Sportsbet is offering 1.20 on the fav and 4.60 on the upset in a head to head match.  They have deemed one team to be much stronger than the other and are prepared to gamble on this result.  Now if Kenny and I again both pick a team and bet $10 each, one of us stands to win $12 and the other $46.  TAB Sportsbet get $20 out of us.  On the 1.20 win they will make $8, but on the 4.60 upset they will lose $26.

The same match is listed as 1.23 and 4.40 on Sportsbet and in the same scenario, we can win either $12.30 or $44, and they will either make $7.70 or lose $24.

So how do they make their money in these matches?

The majority of punters will be betting on the favourite hoping to win $12 from their $10 bet (a $2 profit).  Those picking the upset are trying to win and make a profit of $36. For the bookie, they just need to position the odds so that the result gives them a profit no matter what the outcome is, as seen with the odds above.

Say 10 people bet $10 each on the upset.  They have bet $100 and the bookie would have to pay out $360 extra to cover them.  That would require 36 bets on the favourite of $10 each.  So overall there was $460 bet.  If the fav does get up, it has to payout those 36 punters $12 each, which is $432, and a profit of $28.  In this balanced scenario, even if the upset did occur, they still wouldn’t lose any money.  But if say 40 people bet on the fav and 10 on the upset, they will make a profit with either result.  $500 bet.  Fav wins = payout $480 ($20 profit).  Upset = payout $460 ($40 profit).

So as I hope you can see, it wouldn’t be difficult to keep adjusting the odds of either outcome depending on how much money was being spent on which result, so that the sports bet agencies always made a profit on EACH and EVERY bet they offer to the punters.

Vigorish Formula

There is a formula where you can easily calculate this bookmaker’s edge/ vigorish, and it doesn’t take many calculations to see how much profit they make from every bet they offer the punter.

v = 100 * (1 – (p*q/ p+q) )

Where v = vigorish, and p and q are the decimal payouts for each outcome.

In the TAB Sportsbet scenario for an even match, p = 1.87 and q = 1.87

v = 100 * (1 – (1.87*1.87/ 1.87+1.87)) = 100 * (1 – (3.4969/ 3.74)) = 100 * (1 – 0.935) = 100 * 0.065 = 6.5%.

Hey, same as my calculation above!

In the second TAB Sportsbet example, p = 1.20 and q = 4.60

v = 100 * (1 – (1.20*4.60/ 1.20+4.60)) = 100 * (1 – (5.52/ 5.8)) = 100 * (1 – 0.9517) = 100 * 0.04828 = 4.828%

So believe it or not, TAB Sportsbet are still making 4.828% out of the 1.20 v 4.60 match no matter who wins.  Again, an easy way to make money; I’ll take people’s bets on any sport they like, give them odds so they can gamble on winning some money, and then take 5% of every single transaction regardless of the result.

Who Pays the Vigorish

There is some debate as to who actually pays the bookies juice; the winner or the loser.  It is a bit of a perspective dilemma, whether you view it from the winner’s perspective or the loser’s perspective, but I like to keep things simple and this is my explanation.  The winner pays the vigorish.

Let’s use the head-to-head match where both teams are paying 1.87, and Kenny and I bet $10 each on a team to win; he picks Collingwood and I choose Richmond.  At the end of the game, one of us is going to lose $10 and one of us will win $18.70.  When you bet $10, you assume that if you lose, the $10 is lost.  If the odds were a true reflection of an even match, the winner would expect to double their money and collect $20.  However, they are only going to receive $18.70, and are paying a tax of $1.30 to the bookie for handling their money for this bet.

It can be argued that because the bookie was holding both our bets as a $20 pool, the winner gets back their $10 bet and the $8.70 from the odds, which is what they were expecting, and the loser has in fact paid the $1.30 tax out of their losing $10, with $8.70 of their losing bet going to the winner.  The problem I have with this view is say only 1 bet was placed on the event and it wins.  There is no loser to pay the vigorish, so the bookmaker must be paying it for you.  This could be argued theoretically, but the bottom line is, the sports bet agencies don’t EVER pay even money for evenly matched head-to-head events, and the reduction in the odds below 2-1 is what the punter is paying as a tax to the bookies if they win their bet.

With betting exchanges like Betfair, they take a flat rate (5% less incentives) of the NET PROFIT the punter may make on any event they have bet on, where the loser just forgoes their investment with no further loss incurred. This to me is what the sports betting agencies do as well, except they often take more juice and it is factored into the odds before you make the bet.

The next post is going to look at the formula for calculating vigorish for events with 3 outcomes, which will be applied to the soccer.

Beaner

This post is going to have a look at the varying odds the major Australian sports betting agencies are paying for a soccer game, and how even the best of these odds are still stacked against you.

English League 1: Preston v Oldham 10th September 2013

Home Draw Away
Bet365 1.95 3.50 4.33
Unibet 1.83 3.40 4.20
Centrebet 1.89 3.40 3.95
Sportingbet 1.89 3.40 3.95
Tom Waterhouse 1.88 3.38 3.96
Sportsbet 1.91 3.40 3.80
IASbet 1.91 3.40 3.80
Luxbet 1.87 3.35 3.85
TAB Sportsbet 1.85 3.50 3.65

From this table it is easy to see that Bet365 is giving the best value for this match, with the highest fav odds, equal highest draw odds and the highest upset odds.

If you bet $10 on each result with Bet365, you could win $19.50, $35 or $43.30, compared to $18.50, $35 and $36.50 with TAB Sportsbet.  The biggest difference between the two agencies is obviously in the upset payout.

As discussed in the previous post on the EPL soccer, 2 out of the 3 outcomes for Bet365 are returning a profit on this match.  3 x $10 bets is a $30 outlay in total, and a draw or the upset are going to return you $35 or $43.30 respectively.  The win pays $19.50, which would be a loss of $10.50 (35% loss), the draw would be a $5 profit (16.67% return) and the upset a $13.30 profit (44.33% return).

Is gambling against the fav worth it in the soccer?  Even though it looks tempting, for every time the fav does win, you have to recoup that loss of $10.50.  This would take a bit more than 2 draws or a bit less than one upset to get back in front.  Now if you know your soccer and are an astute tipster (or just plain lucky) you could bet on the draw and upset only in select matches.  This would save you $10 from betting on the fav to win, but you risk losing the entire $20 if the fav does get up.  So now you have to recoup the $20 every time the fav gets home.  This will take 4 draws or 1 ½ upsets to break even again.  So if the 1.95 fav (on Bet365) happens to win 4 times in a row, you have got a lot of chasing to do to get back in front.

So what if we just bet on all three outcomes?  All things being equal, over time you would still probably make a slow loss, as you are requiring the draw or upset to happen just about as frequently as the fav winning, with the more upsets the better due to their higher return.

Let’s have a look at some simulated results over 10 matches to get a feel for what you need to happen to make a profit.  In 10 games you would have outlaid $300 ($30 x 10 games).

Fav wins 5 times in 10 games

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there are 5 draws and 0 upsets.

The fav winning 5 times returns $97.50

The draw 5 times returns $175

Your total return would be $272.50 (a loss of $27.50)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there are 4 draws and 1 upset.

The fav winning 5 times returns $97.50

The draw 4 times returns $140

The upset once returns $43.30

Your total return would be $280.80 (a loss of $19.20)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there are 3 draws and 2 upsets.

Your total return would be $289.10 (a loss of $10.90)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there are 2 draws and 3 upsets.

Your total return would be $297.40 (a loss of $2.60)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there is 1 draw and 4 upsets.

Your total return would be $305.70 (a profit of $5.70)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 5 times, there are 0 draws and 5 upsets.

Your total return would be $314 (a profit of $14)

 

Fav wins 4 times in 10 games

Over 10 games, the fav wins 4 times, there are 6 draws and 0 upsets.

The fav winning 4 times returns $78

The draw 6 times returns $210

Your total return would be $288 (a loss of $12)

 

Over 10 games, the fav wins 4 times, there are 4 draws and 2 upsets.

Your total return would be $304.60 (a profit of $4.60)

 

Fav wins 3 times in 10 games

Over 10 games, the fav wins 3 times, there are 7 draws and 0 upsets.

The fav winning 3 times returns $58.50

The draw 7 times returns $245

Your total return would be $303.50 (a profit of $3.50)

 

If the fav wins 6 times, you can’t even break even with all 4 upsets and no draws.

The fav winning 6 times returns $117

The upset 4 times returns $173.20

Your total return would be $290.20 (a loss of $9.80)

To be able to make a profit betting on all 3 outcomes at this odds level with Bet365, which is the best odds on offer by an Australian sports betting agency (that I have found), you need things to go your way.  If the fav wins 6 or more times out of 10 matches, you can’t make a profit.  If the fav wins 5 out of 10 games, you also need a minimum of 4 upsets to make a profit.  If the fav wins 4 out of 10 times, you also need a minimum of 2 upsets to make a profit.  If the fav wins 3 or fewer times out of 10 matches, you will make a profit regardless of the result.

Looking at the odds again on Bet365 (1.95/ 3.50/ 4.33) which are the best odds on offer from the 8 bookies studied in this example, it would nearly be impossible to make money betting on all three outcomes.

Just betting the favourite

With a return of 1.95, the fav would have to win 6 out of 10 times to guarantee a profit (6 x $19.50 = $117, a profit of $17 every 10 x $10 bets).  If the fav only wins 5 times or less out of 10 games, you will make a loss.

Why is it so?

Vigorish!  This will be covered in detail in the next post, and it is one of the most important factors when trying to make a profit from sports betting.

Duplicate Sports Betting Agencies

Let’s have a look at the odds table again:

English League 1: Preston v Oldham 10th September 2013

Home Draw Away
Bet365 1.95 3.50 4.33
Unibet 1.83 3.40 4.20
Centrebet 1.89 3.40 3.95
Sportingbet 1.89 3.40 3.95
Tom Waterhouse 1.88 3.38 3.96
Sportsbet 1.91 3.40 3.80
IASbet 1.91 3.40 3.80
Luxbet 1.87 3.35 3.85
TAB Sportsbet 1.85 3.50 3.65

After seeing the duplicate odds for some of the sports bet agencies above, on a hunch I went through a selection of random sports to compare Centrebet and Sportingbet and they both were offering the exact same odds.  This was the case for Sportsbet and IASbet as well.  I also found that this was the same situation for the new company in the Australian sports betting market, Ladbrokes from the UK, and another agency that popped up at the same time, Bookmaker.com.au.

If you compare these ‘sister’ sites, you will see that the terminology for how they describe the events is exactly the same, as well as the events available to bet on and the odds they are offering, and after some research I discovered that they are both owned by the same company and are operating under two different names.  Centrebet and Sportingbet are both owned by British gambling powerhouse William Hill, whereas Sportsbet and IASbet are owned by Irish bookmaker Paddy Power.

This may well be a strategy to entice more punters to sign up with both agencies due to the free bet deals they offer new members, where the punters wouldn’t even realise they are essentially the same bookie.  Whatever their motivation, I think it is unnecessary and quite insidious, as it is flooding the Australian market and preying on the punter with a potential (or existing) gambling addiction.

Beaner

The terms ‘probability’ and ‘odds’ are two common ways used to describe how likely it is that a certain event will happen.  In gambling, both terms tell you how likely you are to win, but they do this in different ways.

This difference is important to understand when gambling or punting, as different forms of gambling and casino games can often use either system to express the expected payouts.

Probability is the number of winning outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes.

Odds compare the number of losing outcomes to the number of winning outcomes (in ratio form).  Odds can also be expressed both ‘for’ and ‘against’, where the odds ‘against’ the event in question is simply a reversal of the odds ‘for’.

 

Example 1

Think of rolling a dice and hoping for a 4 to come up. In this case there are six possible outcomes on the dice, one winning outcome and five losing outcomes.

• The probability of rolling a 4 would be shown as 1/6, or one in six (16.67%).

• The odds for rolling a 4 would be shown as 1:5, or one to five.  The odds against rolling a 4 would be shown as 5:1, or five to one against.

 

Example 2

Another example is drawing an Ace out of a deck of cards. In this case there are 52 possible outcomes in a deck of cards, four winning outcomes and forty-eight losing outcomes.

• The probability of drawing an Ace would be shown as 4/52 = 1/13 or one in thirteen (7.7%).

• The odds for drawing an Ace would be shown as 4:48 = 1:12, or one to twelve. The odds against drawing an Ace would be shown as 12:1, or twelve to one against.

Beaner