Does Knowing the Odds Make You a Better Bettor?
As fans across the country pored over depth charts and the latest oddsmakers' predictions before making a bet on the Super Bowl, it's likely that those who are students of the game felt quite confident about the outcome of their wagers. But did knowledge of statistics and other factors really give those bettors an advantage?
According to results of a recent Canadian study (Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2004). Sports Betting: Can Gamblers Beat Randomness? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(2), 143-147), while a perceived skill in sports betting does give bettors the illusion of control over the outcome of their wagers, it is unclear whether this perceived skill can actually influence the outcome of the bet or increase winnings.
Scientists examined wagers placed by 30 frequent bettors on National Hockey League (NHL) games in Quebec. Participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire on their betting habits and beliefs, as well as place $2 bets on a series of 18 wagering slips. A randomly generated selection of bets on a similar group of 18 slips served as the control group for the study.
In comparing the "skilled" bettors' selections with the random sample, results indicated that the "skilled" bettors were slightly more accurate and won slightly more bets than the randomly selected wagers. On average, about 47 percent of predictions made by the study participants were correct, compared with about 33 percent of the randomly selected bets.
However, the study pointed to a significant flaw in the methodology that could account for the discrepancy in winnings. According to researchers, the control group may not have been representative of a naturally occurring random sample because it gave equal weight to the three possibilities of a visiting team win, home team win or tie, even though tie games actually occur much less frequently than the other two outcomes. According to the study, ties occurred in only about 14 percent of NHL games during the 2003-04 season.
Based on this inconsistency, researchers indicated that the control group may not be representative of a naturally occurring random sample of bets. According to the study, if no tie games are chosen for the randomly selected bets, the selection would still be correct 43 percent of the time, and if the amount of time ties are selected is weighted to their actual rate of occurrence (14 percent), the sample selections would be correct 45 percent of the time, which nearly mirrors the rate of accuracy for the bettors in the study.
While researchers indicate the design of the random control sample makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of perceived betting knowledge on the rate of successful wagers, they said the study does reveal interesting findings related to how these perceived experts place their bets. According to researchers, the "skilled" bettors believed their knowledge of the odds increased their chance of winning and that a relationship exists between the odds and the probability that one team would win or lose. They admitted this knowledge impacted their decision on how to place their bets.
The scientists suggested these results indicate further research is needed to explore the issue of perceived control and the impact it may have on bettors' choice of bets and decision to keep betting despite significant losses. They said more research could also explore the role of odds in the wagering process, both from the perspective of the "skilled" bettors and the house. Because the house sets the odds that determine payoffs, researchers said, even an improved ability to pick correctly may not be enough to overcome the house advantage.
The information in this article was reported in the 10/27/04 issue of The Wager.
