Data Science Meets Sports Gambling: How Researchers Beat the Bookies (newscientist.com) 78
"A trio of data scientists developed a betting strategy to beat bookmakers at football games," writes austro. [The game Americans call soccer.] New Scientist reports:
The team studied 10 years' worth of data on nearly half a million football matches and the associated odds offered by 32 bookmakers between January 2005 and June 2015. When they applied their strategy in a simulation, they made a return of 3.5 per cent. Making bets randomly resulted in a loss of 3.32 per cent. Then the team decided to try betting for real. They developed an online tool that would apply their odds-averaging formula to upcoming football matches. When a favorable opportunity arose, a member of the team would email Kaunitz and his wife, one of whom then placed a bet.
They kept this up for five months, placing $50 bets around 30 times a week. And they were winning. After five months the team had made a profit of $957.50 -- a return of 8.5 per cent. But their streak was cut short. Following a series of several small wins, the trio were surprised to find that their accounts had been limited, restricting how much they could bet to as little as $1.25. The gambling industry has long restricted players who appear to show an edge over the house, says Mark Griffiths at Nottingham Trent University, UK.
The paper "illustrates how the sports gambling industry compensates market inefficiencies with discriminatory practices against successful clients," adds austro, noting that the researchers posted a paper explaining their methodology on arxiv last week. "They also made the dataset and source code available on github. And best of all, they made an online publicly available dashboard that shows a live list of bet recommendations on football matches based on their strategy here or here for anyone to try."
They kept this up for five months, placing $50 bets around 30 times a week. And they were winning. After five months the team had made a profit of $957.50 -- a return of 8.5 per cent. But their streak was cut short. Following a series of several small wins, the trio were surprised to find that their accounts had been limited, restricting how much they could bet to as little as $1.25. The gambling industry has long restricted players who appear to show an edge over the house, says Mark Griffiths at Nottingham Trent University, UK.
The paper "illustrates how the sports gambling industry compensates market inefficiencies with discriminatory practices against successful clients," adds austro, noting that the researchers posted a paper explaining their methodology on arxiv last week. "They also made the dataset and source code available on github. And best of all, they made an online publicly available dashboard that shows a live list of bet recommendations on football matches based on their strategy here or here for anyone to try."
Re: (Score:3)
So the bookies are taking some responsibility for keeping the market 'fair'. If they identify a player who has some unexplained statistical advantage, they move to protect their broader customer base. The bookies have no way of knowing whether these bets are being placed by highly skilled bettors, AI, or bag men for the mob, spreading bets around on fixed games.
Re:They're not beating the bookies just other bett (Score:5, Interesting)
It is true that bookies do not gamble more than other businessmen. If they are competent they set the odd so that there is close-to-even exposure on both sides, so that it does not matter who wins in the long run, their pay-out is the same and they make their safely money on the vigorish. Averaging over time allows adjustment of imperfections in the odds setting. Its all about making the most money possible in a predictable way.
But book making is not an instantaneous frictionless process. Bookies make mistakes, which will cost them. They will pay-out too much and thus not make what they expect on the vig. They will make it up in time, but a loss is a loss.
These researchers developed not a technique to predict who would win, but bookies with mispriced odds, which allows you to get in on the unexpected large payouts, thus costing the bookie more when this happens. They don't like this, and will stop it if they can detect it - as the paper shows.
Re: They're not beating the bookies just other bet (Score:3)
I would give you my mod points if I had any.
Re: (Score:1)
I would give you my mod points if I had any.
I'd ask him what the fuck "vigorish" means first, but each to their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I would give you my mod points if I had any.
I'd ask him what the fuck "vigorish" means first, but each to their own.
It is a term familiar to me as a UK reader from American crime books, though I've mostly seen it used to mean interest on a (dodgy) loan, but it can also mean the boookie's/house cut in gambling.
Cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason not to gamble: the house cheats. Always. Win consistently against the house anywhere, and you will be asked to leave. Win too much off a slot machine, and it was "out of order".
The betting houses and casinos exist to take people's money. One should not forget this.
Re: (Score:1)
... Win too much off a slot machine, and it was "out of order".
Posting Anon...
The slots are meant to pay out at a certain RTP. This is in regulated markets of course; but for the most part, most places are regulated in some way when it comes to slot machines.
In some shady place in the world I would sure imagine this is something commonplace; as there is a message clearly saying "Malfunctions voids all pays and plays", it can surely be used as grounds for abuse. It's mostly meant for when a mistake like an unsigned int is deducted from further than 0 and ends up showing
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's those casinos on the reservations that seem to have the reputation for having a slot machine that was faulty when it made a payout on those networked machines. But it happens in other places:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/... [thesun.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
https://www.onlinecasinoselite... [onlinecasinoselite.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But at the better casinos at least they offer you a free steak dinner in lieu of the $43,000,000 payout:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/us/slot-machine-winner-steak-dinner-trnd/index.html [cnn.com]
Re:Cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
$6,500 according to TFA, but they didn't even offer to pay her that much.
Casinos sell the dream of a big win. It's an illusion and they literally bank on that. So when the unexpected lightning strike occurs they should be on the hook to pay out even if it's because their software messed up. How many times does it mess up in the other direction, failing to display a win when a win should have occurred? Nobody publishes these figures; the casinos don't want them known.
What happens when a gambler loses his (or her) home "in error" because of their gambling addiction? Does the casino say "Sorry, the only reason we won that money from you is because you made a mistake and bet more than you could afford to lose - here, take it back"? No. They don't.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, a machine fault 'voids all play'.
In reality I'm sure they would return your wagers if the machine was found defective.
In the rest of reality, they do not actively check each machine before each wager. Only after a large win (loss to them). If you had reason to believe a machine was broken I presume there's a method to have the machine checked and play voided. Good luck getting that to happen though.
Re: (Score:2)
How would one "have reason to believe a machine" was not reporting a win? All one knows is that one's money kept flowing into the slot and not coming back, as is the norm.
The house of course easily knows when the machine fails -- the machine awards more money to the player than they expected it to, so it's broken.
Such is the beautiful logic of casino gambling :-)
Re: (Score:2)
All one knows is that one's money kept flowing into the slot and not coming back, as is the norm.
Actually it's not the norm. It depends on the game's target audience.
Some games won't pay for a long time then all of a sudden, BAM $5000!
Some games never pay big and instead give you small wins, just to keep you happy, entertained, and most importantly, keep playing.
Some games just try to be super flashy and end up fucking with this balance of aggressive player vs casual player and end up flopping despite being stunningly beautiful games.
The house of course easily knows when the machine fails -- the machine awards more money to the player than they expected it to, so it's broken.
The house panics when a machine fails. Important people get called up
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these on-the-field issues are usually handled on a case by case basis actually, from my understanding.
I've heard of cases where the player is given the max award when the jig rolls up to some obscene win amount. Similarly, there are cases where it's just "sorry bud, I guess the machine's just broken."
There are a number of software requirements that most markets have in case of player disputes. Example; one can view all games played up to a certain amount to verify if the player is lying or not when
Re: (Score:2)
No insult registered on my part, but you are ignoring the point that most people who throw their hard-earned money away in casinos don't know the inner workings of the "industry" either - they just watch their money go down the toilet. They may find it "exciting" for some time bu
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything you've said.
Entertainment is subjective to the consumer.
There's outlets for help to the people who choose to want it. Do people who smoke cigarettes seek help for the most part? Probably not. You get it?
If the casinos don't do it, someone else will. People naturally seem to want to gamble. I'd rather have a regulated gambling industry than one that chooses its own luck. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the latter.
So while there are ifs/ands/buts/etc. the fact of the matter
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, how insightful. Thanks for pointing out how different gambling is from all other entertainment industries. Of course, they are somewhat different. If you spend your money on movies, or books, or concerts, or theme parks, or video games you will never come home with more money than you originally had. With casinos, you might.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, gambling should be viewed as a frequently expensive, and not infrequently addictive form of entertainment.
Sure occasionally you might make some money, but the proportion of gambling trips that do in the end is small, and if enjoyed repeatedly the odds of being ahead at all decline to a very low order. In the end it is all outflow, the same as all other forms of entertainment. The occasional payout is really just like an occasional discount on a movie ticket or book, it reduces a bit the total you s
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They are selling an illusion. The real problem is that most people do not understand that. In the lottery, you can win big, but chances are so small that it will never happen to you. In the forms of gambling where you actually have a fair chance of winning, other limiters, like what you describe, make sure you will never win much or over a longer time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the exact same type of gambling the casinos do with their playing customers actually.
This is assuming you're a good poker player. Otherwise, you're right. It's gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
Class Action Lawsuit from DataScientists (Score:1)
Concerned citizens must apply elementary school playground standards.
One should not be shown the exit when you play better using public and fair rules.
It's worse than I'll go home with the ball; it's I will bully you to leave the Playground because you don't lose.
It would not be an "industry" if it was fair play (Score:3)
That they play fair, and thus are likely not to be the only consistent winner amongst the thousands of gamblers they call "customers"?
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically what else do you expect them to do?
They are a business intending to make money. As far as I know they don't have a bottomless pit of money so can't afford to just pay out and pay out and regulation which forced them to is simply likely to mean no bookmakers. Their sole tool is to attempt to balance the market between the winners and losers (whilst taking their cut) - this means controlling the people involved in some way, the only two ways I can think of are discriminating against those who ar
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they could adapt?
I mean, these researchers have proven one thing: That the bookmaker algorithms are close to, but not entirely perfect. The bookmakers need to update their algorithms, put out odds that once again leave them winning the long run, and still allowing the gamblers to have a lucky score now and then.
Closing down accounts, banning people etc. ... Isn't that the exact same thing as the RIAA screaming and yelling and suing grandmothers instead of getting with the times and creating an onlin
Re: (Score:2)
At least they didn't send a couple of "goons" out to break their legs. Look on the bright side of gambling for a change!
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the exact same thing as the RIAA screaming and yelling and suing grandmothers instead of getting with the times and creating an online music service?
No not even close. It would be more like the RIAA deciding not to sell to those doing the "pirating" to prevent those people copying in future - which doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Not a perfect analogy still but closer.
As to adapting I think I covered that. Sure they can change the odds etc. accepting the outcome is not that they'll ban a few, but effectively ban everybody by offering really poor odds or simply not be willing to take the bet from anyone. This isn't really in their commercial intere
Re: (Score:2)
Government regulations that allow it? How a bout lack of government regulation to prohibit it.
Re: (Score:2)
By that idiotic definition, not having insurance is gambling (betting nothing bad will happen)
Re: (Score:2)
I have frequently seen things like driving without insurance called a 'gamble'.
Re: (Score:3)
It's as if people forget that someone has to pay for all those people walking around in fancy suits and pay for the massive electrical bill a casino must generate.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is how much is too much. Most people who think for a minute or two will understand the concept of the vig. It's also understood that the possibility that you might occasionally beat the vig is part of the attraction. The house sees that as part of the cost of doing business. They don't win on every customer every time.
The question is really how far is too far to go in making sure they do win. Even in a game of chance, some people will beat the vig more often than others. How far is too far to g
casino as debauchery fund (Score:2)
I expect that an industry offering a product called "gambling" offers a product that resembles gambling, which this does not. This is heads I win, tails you lose. The only uncertainty is the position of the minute hand on the wall clock marking your (rare) upticks in an otherwise constantly downward march.
You're in prison. Everyday, you get to pick a number from 1 to 3. If you guess right, you get fed a nice meal. If you guess wrong, you don'
Re: (Score:2)
Casinos obviously don't tend to bother with games that lack a house edge(either games played against the house that have a less than 100% return rate or games between players with a house rake); but if the device operates precisely as the payout schedule says it will it isn't a fraudulent losing proposition.
In the glorious world of online gambling, the combination of technical opacity and operators generally work
I'm a bookie, AMA (Score:1)
Q: Is this a game of chance?
A: Not the way I play it.
Happens lots (Score:2)
I've met two people in different cities, both had systems to beat different sports, 1st guy made money off of horses and managed to fly under the radar, the other guy beat them on football (soccer), but he was a bit too good and got banned everywhere.
I managed to take the online casinos for a couple of hundred via their introductory offer... but my 'system' was weak, might just have been luck. And I discovered how addictive online gambling can be and stayed away ever since, I recognised some dangerous emoti
Re: (Score:2)
I recognised some dangerous emotions.
Lack of erection?
Re: (Score:2)
That's dangerous is it!! Is your name Harvey Weinstein?
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, Weinstein's problem was too much erection. Especially if there was an attractive potted plant in the vicinity.
Re: (Score:3)
That plant was asking for it!
Re:Happens lots (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's your first time in a casino, you indeed happen to have a lot of 'luck'. I live near a few Indian reservations and have applied for a number of IT jobs in them. You would never want to play after you see what they have in modern times, nobody is going to break your arm anymore for winning, the odds will shift in their favor until you start losing. The small datacenter in the casino is not just for video recording.
You walk in first time and you always get a "promotion", once a certain promotion has been fulfilled based on your demographic, the casino will expect a 'return' on it's promotion. This all gets calculated out based on the information you give them, location analysis, food and drink consumption etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Pittsburgh Phil quote (Score:2)
"If you could beat the ponies, they wouldn't be running them."
"The game Americans call soccer" (Score:1)
Bookmaking is not a free market. (Score:2)
The house always tips the odds in their favor. But in general that is also true of any business. Barriers, marketing, a good job at selling, exploiting emotions, an addictive product, etc. are all used to ensure there is no level playing field. Any business that wants a level playing field is insane, the want an advantageous position and captured markets.
The only way to actually have anything resembling a Free Market is through careful regulation and government intervention.
Sounds like they just found a honeypot (Score:2)
From TFA:
Online bookmakers have very tight profit margins, so some offer generous odds for very short periods of time on certain matches to lure automated or expert betting systems out into the open, says economist David Forrest at the University of Liverpool, UK. “They will try to trap the robots,” he says. “Anyone who responds has their account closed.”
Some of the researchers’ accounts may have fallen foul of this system. In some cases they found they could not bet at all after signing up with certain bookies. If so, then this suggests their technique really was finding the best odds out there. But the house still always wins in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really weird response in the midst of a raft of comments castigating the casinos and betting houses for taking whatever measures necessary to keep their intended margins. For them it's "cheating" and for you it's... ?
\o/ (Score:1)
If everyone starts using the list of live recommendations, does this mean that the gambling industry won't want to let anyone 'gamble'? Sounds like a win for me :D
They said thanks. (Score:2)