Hacker News Reader

Comment by nnfy | Hacker News Reader

I am confused. If the betting is rigged, then how were the authors able to beat it consistently? What did I miss?

"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 they are posted and bets begin to come in, the market takes hold and begins swaying the odds one way or another, because bookies change the odds in order to try to balance their books such that they have little to no actual risk. It is in the swinging of the odds by the market, which has many unsophisticated participants - people betting on a team simply because they live in that city etc. - where money can be made, because there is an incredibly large amount of "dumb money" in the sports betting market.

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 games in both simulated environments and real-life betting.

> We provide a detailed description of our betting experience to illustrate how the sports gambling industry compensates these market inefficiencies with discriminatory practices against successful clients.

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.

If you consistently lose money whenever you transact with someone then you're going to stop doing business with or try to limit how much you lose. They're not rigging the actual game in any way. But if they're not throttling you it's a pretty good indication that you're not coming out ahead.

If there was an obscure way to play craps that made the house advantage negative they would either change the rules or ban the practice. You could call it rigging but by that token every game is rigged, that's the whole point, you're playing in the hope of beating the odds. The rules and odds are completely transparent, 'rigging' would be like using weighted dice.

Limiting those who stand a chance of pulling off the type of big wins they advertise heavily on television is rigging the market. It's manipulation, pure and simple. What they're selling is a bullshit dream that if you ever come close to they will bar you. This type of activity is the definition of predatory. It's straight up rigging.

It’s not rigging. If you place a bet and it wins, they will pay you. It would only be rigged if a bookmaker decided whether or not to take your bet after the event.

That if you keep winning they restrict your account.

> 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.

Nobody is in the business of giving money away.

So the bookmaker put controls on how and how much you can bet. There’s a reason why this stuff was illegal for a long time — gambling is always a vicious cycle for the player.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com