tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/bookmakers-12155/articlesbookmakers – The Conversation2019-11-07T15:48:23Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1256922019-11-07T15:48:23Z2019-11-07T15:48:23ZGambling and sport: how bookmakers win in voluntary ‘whistle-to-whistle’ advert ban<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300652/original/file-20191107-10910-1a5vyob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C31%2C3000%2C1962&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Half the teams in the English Premier League –like West Ham – are sponsored by gambling companies.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-march-16-2019-michail-1340639750">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Huddersfield Town FC unveiled its 2019-20 match shirt emblazoned with an enormous sash bearing the logo of bookmakers Paddy Power, fans were horrified and took to social media to voice their disgust. </p>
<p>But the “new” shirt was actually a <a href="https://news.paddypower.com/football/2019/07/19/fake-shirt-hoax/">hoax</a>, the latest in a series of <a href="https://news.paddypower.com/propaganda/2018/09/17/paddy-power-30-birthday/">high-profile marketing stunts</a> from the media-savvy bookmaker, and part of its “<a href="https://www.saveourshirt.co.uk/">Save Our Shirt</a>” campaign that aims to get sponsors to stop ruining football kit with excessive branding. That the fans took the whole caper at face value is a telling sign of how normalised the relationship between gambling marketing and football has become.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=946&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=946&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300626/original/file-20191107-10901-w45py.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=946&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Huddersfield Town shirt hoax.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://news.paddypower.com/football/2019/07/19/fake-shirt-hoax/">Paddy Power</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2005, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents">the Gambling Act</a> made it legal for gambling companies to sponsor football clubs or competitions in the UK, as well as relaxing restrictions on advertising on television and other gambling marketing opportunities. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in gambling sponsorship in the UK.</p>
<p>In the 2019-20 football season, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/19/half-of-premier-league-clubs-to-have-gambling-sponsors-for-201920">half</a> of the teams in the <a href="https://www.premierleague.com/">English Premier League (EPL)</a> have the logo of a bookmaker displayed on their match shirts. In Scotland, <a href="https://spfl.co.uk/">all four professional leagues</a> and both of the domestic cup competitions are sponsored by gambling companies, such as <a href="https://spfl.co.uk/league/league-cup">the Betfred Cup</a>.</p>
<p>Some clubs even have relationships with several gambling companies. Leicester City, for example, <a href="https://www.lcfc.com/news/1347075/leicester-city-name-yabo-sports-as-official-club-partner/press-release">recently announced</a> a partnership with Asian betting brand Yabo Sports, making a total of five gambling sponsors of the club at the one time.</p>
<p>There appears no limit to how gambling can be promoted through football. For example, at most grounds, gambling operators provide <a href="https://blog.marathonbet.co.uk/sponsors/manchester-city/">matchday betting services</a>, branded betting kiosks, supporter competitions to win “money-can’t-buy experiences”, and advertising around the stadium on match days.</p>
<p>Like Paddy Power, some gambling companies are becoming more subtle and clever in their promotion. For example, Wayne Rooney’s latest transfer to Derby County was reportedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/09/church-criticises-wayne-rooney-over-derby-gambling-tie-up">partly funded</a> by online casino 32 Red. Unsurprisingly, he will wear the number 32 on his match shirt.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8g8Rm9xyCXw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Policing themselves</h2>
<p>For the most part, gambling companies are responsible for <a href="http://igrg.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Gambling-Industry-Code-for-Socially-Responsible-Advertising-5th-Edition.pdf">self-regulating</a> their sport sponsorship activities. In response to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46469308">criticism</a> about the amount of gambling advertising in sport, the latest self-regulatory initiative is a voluntary <a href="https://www.rga.eu.com/igrg-announces-whistle-to-whistle-ban-on-gambling-advertising-around-live-sport/">“whistle-to-whistle”</a> ban on advertising during live sport, which began this season.</p>
<p>The development was led by the <a href="https://www.rga.eu.com/">Remote Gambling Association</a>, a group that includes leading bookmakers such as Bet365, Ladbrokes and Paddy Power. Under the whistle-to-whistle ban, gambling companies agreed not to show gambling adverts during all live sport broadcast on television before 9pm in the UK, except for horse racing.</p>
<p>The ban is only partial, starting five minutes before the match kicks off and ending five minutes after it finishes. This means that adverts are still permitted during the pre-match build up. The ban also only covers adverts in commercial breaks. But other forms of marketing can appear in the match, including shirt sponsorship and pitchside advertising. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uvGqYr8OTBo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Limiting gambling ad exposure</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.about.gambleaware.org/media/1963/17-067097-01-gambleaware_interim-synthesis-report_080719_final.pdf">recent research</a>, we examined gambling marketing in five television football broadcasts in the UK before the voluntary ban came in. This included two live games from the English Premier League and one from the <a href="https://spfl.co.uk/">Scottish Premier League</a> (SPL).</p>
<p>We assessed how often references to a gambling company appeared, where these references appeared (such as pitchside advertising), and what they looked like (for example, on match shirts). It repeated our <a href="https://theconversation.com/footballs-unholy-alliance-with-alcohol-sends-a-dangerous-message-to-young-people-76721">previous work</a> exploring alcohol marketing at the UEFA Euro 2016 football tournament.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300650/original/file-20191107-10930-1ckzj45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1047&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Celtic’s 2019-20 shirt.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So will the “whistle-to-whistle” ban have any real impact on exposure to gambling marketing during football? In a word, no. In the five football matches analysed, we recorded over 2,000 gambling marketing references. For example, in the EPL match between Bournemouth and Crystal Palace, there were 974 gambling references, appearing around once every 15 seconds. In the SPL’s Rangers versus Celtic match, there were 920 references, appearing around once every ten seconds. </p>
<p>Across all five matches, three-quarters of the references were recorded during the match action, so appearing when the audience are likely to be most engaged. We identified a sophisticated array of opportunities to promote gambling companies, with logos on match shirts and pitch-side adverts appearing most often. Around 1% of references were explicit adverts during commercial breaks, yet these are the only forms of marketing covered by the ban.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300649/original/file-20191107-10919-716lij.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rangers’ 2019-20 shirt.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also worth highlighting that two of the matches analysed in our study featured very few gambling references. These were England versus Italy in an international friendly and Tottenham Hotspur versus Barcelona in the UEFA Champions League. This demonstrates that football, including high-profile matches featuring popular teams, can exist without highly visible gambling sponsorship.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>Some football clubs have recently taken a stance against gambling sponsorship. Luton Town FC’s chief executive Gary Sweet has publicly <a href="https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/sport/football/luton-town/sweet-reveals-luton-have-turned-down-around-1m-from-betting-companies-1-9075823">stated</a> that although the club was not taking an anti-gambling postion, it did not want “to advertise gambling to children…or be responsible for gambling addictions getting worse”.</p>
<p>Other clubs such as English amateur side <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46817317">Headingly FC</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/49683406?__twitter_impression=true">Lewes Community Football Club</a> have agreed to wear the <a href="https://www.gamblingwithlives.org/">Gambling With Lives logo</a> on their shirts to warn about the dangers of gambling addiction.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300657/original/file-20191107-10952-6cobuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some clubs have decided to take a stand against gambling sponsorship of shirts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gamblingwithlives.org/">Gambling With Lives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But until mandatory restrictions are put in place to reduce the volume of gambling advertising visible during televised football, such laudable actions will pale in comparison. And we should not underestimate the effect of this kind of 360° marketing on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/problem-gamblers-uk-gambling-commission-report">2m people</a> in the UK who are problem gamblers or at risk of gambling addiction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Purves's research is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, NHS Health Scotland, GambleAware, and Alcohol Focus Scotland. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathan Critchlow works on research funded by Cancer Research UK, NHS Health Scotland, GambleAware, The Economic and Social Research Council, and Alcohol Focus Scotland. </span></em></p>Since 2005 there has been a dramatic increase in gambling sponsorship of sport in the UK, prompting critics to call time on self-regulation in the industry.Richard Purves, Research fellow, University of StirlingNathan Critchlow, Research Fellow, Institute for Social Marketing, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1062662018-11-14T16:08:25Z2018-11-14T16:08:25ZFixed-odds betting machines are devastatingly addictive – why it’s right to cut maximum stakes<p>MPs rebelled, a minister resigned and the UK government was forced to change tack. No, this is not Brexit. It’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46205812">fixed-odds betting terminals</a>(FOBTs), the incredibly addictive machines that are often found in betting shops. </p>
<p>The government had promised to reduce the maximum stake that people playing FOBTs would be limited to just £2 per play from April 2019. This is the figure <a href="https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2018/Gambling-Commission-publishes-advice-on-gaming-machines.aspx">recommended by the Gambling Commission</a> regulator – a dramatic reduction in price from the current £100 limit. But the chancellor announced in his budget that this reduction would be pushed back to October 2019. This would have allowed bookmakers to make an estimated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/25/uproar-over-delay-to-2-cap-for-bets-on-fixed-odds-betting-machines">£900m extra from FOBTs</a><strong>in the meantime</strong> and the government a lot more in tax revenues.</p>
<p>The move prompted sports minister Tracey Crouch <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/02/fobts-row-minister-quit-over-claim-pro-gambling-mp-secured-delay">to resign</a> from the front bench of British politics and a growing number of MPs from across the political divide to call the government out for its decision to delay. It has bowed to the pressure and will once again reduce the maximum stake to £2 from April 2019.</p>
<p>The fact is, FOBTs are so addictive that they have been labelled the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gamblings-crack-cocaine-is-devastating-lives-and-not-doing-much-for-the-economy-either-77663">“crack cocaine”</a> of gambling methods, encouraging gamblers to play quickly and continuously.</p>
<p>Studies looking at a cross section of the UK population have long recognised FOBTs as contributors to harmful gambling. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-gambling-prevalence-survey-2010">2010 British Prevalence Study</a>, which was the government’s last big investigation into the UK’s gambling habits, found that certain types of gambling, including FOBTs, were strongly connected to harmful gambling. They offer a number of games, commonly roulette or sports race games, which enable easy and fast play.</p>
<p>My research into the effects of gambling in Ireland also reveals how highly addictive FOBTs are. Ireland, unlike the UK, has no legislation controlling or prohibiting FOBTs. I carried out Ireland’s first national study of the social impact of gambling, <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10197/6796">Playing Social Roulette</a>. and in this it was clear that FOBTs were particularly bad for getting people hooked extremely quickly. </p>
<p>Not everyone who gambles has a problem, but harmful gambling happens when someone experiences difficulty with their impulse control and gambling becomes a compulsive activity for them. Gamblers Anonymous <a href="http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/">defines</a> compulsive gambling as an illness. It is progressive in nature and can never be cured, but it can be stopped. As one young male participant in my study explained addiction through FOBTs:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They are programmed to give you small wins and then you get into a false sense of contentment where you think, I have won this amount, so maybe I am going to win some more. But what it does is it just takes everything then. Once you decide to play on, it takes all your winnings until you are left with nothing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He went on:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… you enter like a trance like state. It is almost like a euphoria, you become like a zombie, you are just watching this ball shoot out every 30 seconds and land in a space.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The people in my study spoke of being exposed to gambling in their early years. Technology like FOBTs accelerated the amount they would play and would get them hooked. The gambler experiencing harm would spend continuously to feed their habit, motivated for example, by excitement, an escape from stress and negative emotions, and boredom.</p>
<p>The devastation caused by addiction through FOBTs was equally swift as addiction. For instance, one participant’s mother spoke of her grief to see her otherwise capable son afflicted and how the addiction crept up on them both. Participants in my survey who started playing FOBTs at a young age sought treatment for gambling addiction as soon as their early 20s. </p>
<h2>Beyond FOBTs</h2>
<p>FOBTs are but one of the many technologies that support gambling and increase people’s ability to play and to play more quickly. The rise of smartphones and online gambling websites, for example, make it quicker and easier for people to play. This also enables people to play secretively and hide their gambling from family and friends. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245342/original/file-20181113-194485-4w88n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ubiquity of smartphones makes betting easier – to do and to hide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/businessman-using-smartphone-against-gambling-app-299106047?src=jK3KMb726LDOSi0_XG_T7Q-1-32">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This was clear in Playing Social Roulette. Wives of gamblers, for example, spoke of being aware that their husbands were suffering, but put it down to marital issues rather than the fallout from gambling addiction. </p>
<p>So regulations need to do more than limit FOBTs – they need to address multiple technologies and the addiction that they facilitate. It’s also important to recognise that this is a social issue, as much as a financial one. While gambling addiction may seem to be just about how much money people lose, the impact on people’s lives is also a significant part of the price people pay. Putting regulation into place that recognises this and protects the vulnerable should be a priority.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106266/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Crystal Fulton received funding from the Irish Research Council, with support from the Department of Social Protection, and by the Department of Justice & Equality for the research mentioned in this article.
</span></em></p>Studies looking at a cross section of the UK population have long recognised FOBTs as contributors to harmful gambling.Crystal Fulton, Associate Professor of Information and Communication Studies, University College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768572017-05-01T05:06:38Z2017-05-01T05:06:38ZAction on problem gambling online is a good first step, but no silver bullet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167327/original/file-20170501-12963-1dd5gg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greater protections for online gamblers are clearly needed, given its growth and higher rates of problem gambling among its users.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reactions to new measures <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-and-state-ministers-agree-on-online-gambling-reform/news-story/fd3ea0c6e084e81c1f24a70e38072b3d">designed to tackle problem gambling online</a> have so far been mixed. The federal human services minister, Alan Tudge, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-state-and-territory-ministers-tackle-problem-gambling/news-story/3465297b894e0959067862df9437386d?nk=b00925f1a16d0be259f3f1f1cd361795-1493595808">said he was</a> “hopeful that in combination [they] will have a profound impact”. But Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce chair Tim Costello <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-state-and-territory-ministers-tackle-problem-gambling/news-story/3465297b894e0959067862df9437386d?nk=b00925f1a16d0be259f3f1f1cd361795-1493595808">dismissed them as “cosmetic”</a>. He called instead for a total ban on betting ads on TV during sports broadcasts.</p>
<p>Greater protections for online gamblers are clearly needed. Online gambling is <a href="https://theconversation.com/gambling-gallops-on-stats-reveal-but-what-can-be-done-to-curb-its-harms-64299">growing rapidly</a>, and up to three times higher rates of problem gambling <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4610999/">have been found</a> among internet compared to non-internet gamblers.</p>
<p>There is reason to suggest these new reforms will have some impact in helping tackle problem gambling. However, none of the proposed measures, either alone or in combination, will completely eliminate it online.</p>
<h2>What’s being introduced?</h2>
<p>Under the new <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2016-11-25-gambling-ministers-agree-consumer-protection-framework-online-wagering">National Consumer Protection Framework</a> for online gambling, the main changes will be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Australian betting sites will no longer be allowed to offer credit or “free-bet” inducements (where customers are given betting credit to sign up);</p></li>
<li><p>the establishment of a national online self-exclusion register to allow gamblers to voluntarily ban themselves from any site for between three months and life; and</p></li>
<li><p>the introduction of pre-commitment options – where gamblers can set a maximum amount they can lose – and activity statements detailing gambling wins and losses.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Credit and free-bet inducements</h2>
<p>Several studies have identified credit betting as a risk factor for problem gambling. </p>
<p>The use of digital credit has been associated with lower <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023053630588?LI=true">psychological value compared</a> to physical money. This means gamblers feel less of a “sting” when losing digital credit, which leads to increased gambling losses – particularly among problem gamblers. </p>
<p>Credit betting on in-person gambling forms (like on poker machines and at the TAB) has long been prohibited in order to protect problem gamblers. So, it is reasonable that similar measures be put in place for online betting.</p>
<p>There is also some research on the effect of inducements, such as free bets. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459795.2014.903989">Studies report</a> that online gambling promotions may lead internet gamblers to gamble more money than they had first intended. It was also found that promotions triggered urges to gamble in people seeking treatment for gambling problems. </p>
<p>Thus, there is evidence to suggest a ban on such inducements will be an important protection for problem gamblers.</p>
<h2>Self-exclusion registry</h2>
<p>There are few examples of national online self-exclusion schemes, mostly because online gambling is illegal in many countries and these schemes require the co-operation of multiple betting operators. </p>
<p>In the UK, a <a href="http://www.rga.eu.com/pages/en/noses.html">national online self-exclusion scheme</a> is currently in the piloting stages, with full implementation planned for the end of this year. <a href="https://www.svenskaspel.se/">Svenska Spel</a>, the Swedish state-owned gambling operator, also provides a self-exclusion scheme. </p>
<p>Evaluations of self-exclusion programs generally show <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016676/">positive outcomes</a> in terms of reduced problem gambling, and various social and psychological benefits. This suggests this reform may also be of benefit to gamblers. </p>
<p>However, the main drawback is that while such a register will prevent self-excluded gamblers from opening accounts with Australian betting operators, it will not stop them accessing offshore and illegal betting sites.</p>
<h2>Pre-commitment and activity statements</h2>
<p>Although many betting sites currently provide a limit-setting option, the inclusion of a pre-commitment scheme in the reforms allows governments to prescribe the exact features that are likely to be most effective – for example, limits that are binding. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/15599/1/200584_6987%20Griffiths%20Publisher.pdf">study</a> involving Swedish Svenska Spel customers reported that more than half (56%) had used the spend limit feature. Most (70%) found them to be “quite” or “very” useful. </p>
<p>Similarly, people perceive gambling activity statements <a href="http://www.responsiblegambling.org/docs/research-reports/play-information-and-management-systems.pdf?sfvrsn=10">as useful</a>, provided the data is presented clearly. However, this finding is open to interpretation. And some researchers have expressed concern about the potential for gamblers to misinterpret information displayed by activity statements – thus causing them to chase their losses.</p>
<p>Given most research on these reforms is indirect and has been conducted overseas, there is a need for systematic and empirical research to evaluate their effectiveness once implemented. It is therefore highly encouraging that state and federal government ministers <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2017-04-28-ministers-agree-tackle-major-online-gambling-reform">have promised funding</a> of up to A$3 million to launch a national gambling research model, beginning July 1, that may help answer some of these questions. </p>
<p>These reforms should not be looked at in isolation, but in combination with other proposed measures for tackling problem gambling. This could include <a href="https://theconversation.com/wide-ranging-ban-on-gambling-ads-during-sport-broadcasts-is-needed-to-tackle-problem-gambling-74687">tighter controls on gambling ads</a>, which is also likely to have a significant impact.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76857/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan Pickering receives funding from ClubsNSW. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher John Hunt receives funding from NSW Responsible Gambling Fund.</span></em></p>There is reason to suggest new reforms, such a banning credit bets and establishing a self-exclusion register, will have some impact in helping to tackle problem gambling online.Dylan Pickering, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, University of SydneyChristopher John Hunt, Clinical Psychologist, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/724952017-02-09T23:25:01Z2017-02-09T23:25:01ZSouth Australia’s gambling tax highlights the regulatory mess of online betting<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156006/original/image-20170208-9143-2mny0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">William Hill is among the online bookies to be registered in the Northern Territory, where the tax and regulatory environment is more favourable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The South Australian government <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-could-raise-150-million-off-new-wagering-tax-20170205-gu5wrq.html">will introduce</a> from July a “point-of-consumption tax” to claw back some of the gambling tax revenue it is seeing disappear over the border. </p>
<p>The new tax is a reasonable response to a growing problem, and probably won’t send bookmakers to the wall. But it does highlight the current regulatory mess surrounding how we tax internet wagering in Australia.</p>
<h2>Bookmakers flee north</h2>
<p>In 2008, the High Court <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2008/hca11-2008-03-27.pdf">decided</a> it was unlawful for a state government to protect local wagering operators from the emerging competition provided by online bookmaker Betfair.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://flr.law.anu.edu.au/sites/flr.anulaw.anu.edu.au/files/flr/Ball.pdf">case turned on Section 92</a> of the Constitution, which provides for free trade between the states. What the decision meant was internet bookies licensed in one Australian jurisdiction (the Northern Territory, for example) could offer their wares to anyone living anywhere in Australia. It led to dramatic increases in the promotion and advertising of internet betting, and also to very rapid growth in that commodity.</p>
<p>One of the consequences of this has been a <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/">decline in racing revenue</a> going to governments. In 1990-91, the SA government derived A$52.6 million in racing tax revenue. By 2012-13, this had declined to less than A$1 million (both numbers in real terms, at 2014-15 values). </p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the NT, growth in wagering revenue – for both racing and sports betting – has been exponential.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ir5Lw/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>People in the NT have not taken to racing and sports betting like there’s no tomorrow. But the NT has become home to most of Australia’s internet bookies, thanks to a low-tax regime and relatively loose regulation.</p>
<p>There are 18 internet bookies <a href="https://justice.nt.gov.au/attorney-general-and-justice/racing-commission/sports-bookmakers-and-betting-exchange-operators">registered in the NT</a>, including William Hill, CrownBet, bet365 and Ladbrokes. They get most of their revenue from other states – including SA.</p>
<p>They also don’t pay a lot of tax. In 2014-15, with total wagering expenditure of A$937.6 million, the NT government collected taxes amounting to <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/">a little over A$10 million</a>. That’s a bit less than 1.1% of the money gamblers lost. So, it’s easy to see why the bookies like the NT.</p>
<p>The SA government has decided to try to get a slice of that action, or to dissuade the bookies from marketing their wares into the state – or perhaps a bit of both. </p>
<p>State governments have to pick up the pieces when their residents suffer gambling harm and its effects. This includes domestic violence, job loss, suicide, mental and physical health problems, and so on. It’s pretty galling when another state takes all the benefits (at a discount rate) and doesn’t contribute to the costs involved.</p>
<h2>What is South Australia’s tax designed to do?</h2>
<p>The SA tax is intended to take <a href="http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/tom-koutsantonis-news-releases/743-state-budget-2016-17-state-government-to-introduce-place-of-consumption-tax-for-betting-companies-offering-services-in-sa">15% from net wagering revenue</a> (that is, gambler losses). </p>
<p>All wagering operators will pay the tax – not just the internet bookies. So, it may not amount to a discriminatory or protectionist measure. This is important: if it is discriminatory, the High Court would probably find it unconstitutional, as the Western Australian government’s actions in the Betfair case were deemed to be.</p>
<p>It is abundantly clear that the federal government has the power to regulate internet gambling, via the Constitution’s telecommunication provision. It has <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2005C00372">adopted legislation</a> that does just that, although in a minimal way. </p>
<p>The federal legislation provides for bookmakers licensed in any Australian jurisdiction to be able to offer wagering services throughout Australia. Their actual regulation, however, is left to the state jurisdictions. This is how we’ve ended up in the current mess.</p>
<p>The federal government <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/communities-and-vulnerable-people/programmes-services/gambling">recently convened</a> a ministerial meeting to propose new consumer protection regulations to the states. The government has sensibly realised that inadequate regulation at state level has to be tackled.</p>
<p>But this leaves at least two key issues unresolved. </p>
<p>The main concern of ordinary people when it comes to internet gambling is the continuing bombardment of bookies’ ads accompanying sports broadcasts. These are consumed by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/children-consider-gambling-ads-a-normal-part-of-sport-study/7733696">millions of children</a> because there is an exemption for sport in the TV broadcast self-regulation code. This needs to be tackled, and the federal government is the only jurisdiction with the clear authority to do so. </p>
<p>Also, the tax regimes of the various states differ; the NT clearly leads the race to the bottom. The federal government can regulate and tax the bookies uniformly, if it wishes, and distribute the revenue according to a GST-style formula – or some variation thereof.</p>
<p>That might diminish the NT revenues a little. But it would at least regularise the industry, enable uniform regulation and stop the states trying to pinch each other’s revenue base.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, online bookmaker CrownBet <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/gambling/crown-to-sign-online-betting-deal-with-clubs-nsw-in-blow-to-tabcorp-20170206-gu6d2r">announced a deal with ClubsNSW</a> to provide internet wagering with the co-operation of clubs, which would recruit their members to the cause. In return, the deal would allow the clubs to get a slice of the action. If this works, club-based TABs will see their revenue decline. </p>
<p>In effect, this means a transfer of revenue from the New South Wales government to the NT government. No state wants to see its revenue base decline – particularly when the jurisdiction benefiting doesn’t even tax (or regulate) its bookies as well as it might.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s too much to ask for a sensible national gambling policy with uniform tax rates and reasonable consumer protection and harm-prevention measures in place. But allowing state governments to regulate internet-based services seems like a fairly 19th-century approach to regulation. We can probably do better than that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72495/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian government agencies (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform.</span></em></p>No state wants to see its revenue base decline – particularly when the jurisdiction benefiting doesn’t even tax (or regulate) its bookies as well as it might.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/708302017-01-17T15:28:11Z2017-01-17T15:28:11ZWhy football bets are far more profitable to bookmakers than gambling machines<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153063/original/image-20170117-23058-111395b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Theatre of dreams. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phil Shirley</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the government completes its <a href="http://totallygaming.com/news/street/uk-government-announces-machine-review">review</a> of the gambling sector in the coming weeks, a clampdown on fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) looks to be on the cards. <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/clampdown-looms-crack-cocaine-gambling-9116392">Dubbed</a> the “crack cocaine of gambling” for allowing punters to bet stakes of up to £100 in games like roulette and poker, even former UK culture secretary Tessa Jowell <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4114164/Now-Tessa-Jowell-architect-crack-cocaine-gambling-demands-new-clampdown-addictive-game-machines.html">has joined</a> the chorus demanding curbs – despite overseeing their expansion in the 2000s.</p>
<p>With proposals to reduce maximum stakes to £2 and restrict the number of terminals, the industry is on <a href="http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/fred-done-done-draconian-limit-on-machines-would-be-damaging/2225983/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews">tenterhooks</a>. One of its <a href="http://docplayer.net/9262805-Fixed-odds-betting-terminals-and-the-code-of-practice-a-report-for-the-association-of-british-bookmakers-limited-summary-only.html">defences</a> is that FOBTs have a gross margin of between 2% and 3%, meaning between 97% and 98% of stakes end up being returned to punters in winnings. Which sounds reasonable until you reflect that the high maximum stakes and the speed at which people can bet means they can still run up large debts in a short space of time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153036/original/image-20170117-23071-u0cqm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fixed-odds machines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gamingfloor/8732529863/in/photolist-4eriD-f5A8mP-nx9SKQ-n1nFRD-eiEuTH-DPBjp-DPvSA-DPvSk-DPvSx-DPvS7-DPBju-DPBj7-DPvSM-DPBjf-DPBj1-DPvSH-kCFAbK-mz3rTg-mz3hYn-kr1CJ2-j62NZF-kqZYsV-kqZXcZ-edbyUD-j64eut-cX94dC-cX94bs-RfcANK-zXv7yK-cDoMJy-cSuNeu-q7kS2g-j654E7-cDoMMo-atpst-daTYuS-ciznU1-pr2ADQ-e9i4Dr-daU7UB-daU9FQ-wrFKCo-zEZGdt-QfpwSE-NDigfr-z1tw9d">Ian Sutton</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nonetheless, FOBTs are serving as something of a lightning rod for other types of gambling that are also unfair to punters but poorly understood. I’m referring to bets where people bet not just on the outcome but on other aspects such as the scoreline, who scores first and combinations of outcomes. Supposing it were an Arsenal vs Burnley game, the bookmaker might be offering say 50-1 on Arsenal’s Alexis Sánchez to score first, any Burnley player to score second and Arsenal to win 4-1. </p>
<p>All these betting offers <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-bookies-play-with-your-emotions-to-make-you-place-unlikely-bets-42863">have exploded</a> in recent years. You’ll see them all over the windows of high street bookmakers. It may not be quite as easy as with FOBTs to place lots of bets quickly, but online betting certainly makes it quick and there’s no maximum stake. There’s also no defence of a low gross margin. Do the maths and you find it can be as much as ten times higher. </p>
<h2>How it works</h2>
<p>Suppose in an upcoming international football match between England and Germany, a bookmaker offered odds of 3-1 on Germany to win. That bookmaker is implying that if the game were played four times, Germany would win once. The probability of Germany winning is 1/(3+1), or 0.25, or 25%. In theory the bookmaker is also implying a 0.75 (or 75%) chance of Germany either drawing or losing, since the probabilities of the various possible outcomes has to add up to 1. </p>
<p>I say “in theory” because the above imagines a situation where a benevolent bookmaker told you what they really thought was probable. In reality, bookmakers build in a profit margin by quoting odds that imply a sum of probabilities greater than 1. In other words, they say every outcome will happen slightly more than is possible – hence offering lower potential wins than they “should”. This <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchbooktheorem.asp">allows them</a> to make a risk-free profit from their customers’ wagers that is the same no matter which event actually happens. The higher the sum of probabilities, the higher a bookmaker’s profit margin.</p>
<p>For example one bookmaker offered odds on the Germany vs Argentina <a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/brazil2014/">2014 World Cup final</a> that gave Germany a 0.44 probability of winning in 90 minutes, Argentina an 0.29 probability of winning and a 0.31 probability of a draw. These add up to 1.04, implying a gross profit margin of 0.04/(1+0.04) = 3.8% (see <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/dictionary/042215/understand-math-behind-betting-odds-gambling.asp">here</a> for an explanation of how this maths works). </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=671&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153035/original/image-20170117-23040-1aaxbdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=843&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">2014 and a’ that.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/damien_thorne/14190520427/in/photolist-nBY8ki-nWqw2f-nQ2z3L-q9z5XB-ncLK7V-o5fNfu-nWaCEX-mzz7kA-nE3N2P-mzxF5B-o9HzbE-nT7u1k-nEq8MX-jGkcoT-mzxLxa-nWAuA8-ofq6Yw-nA1vNx-nHmZkq-paZSrR-oiH6pP-nZdEV5-qqW1Cw-nWxtGe-nWxtme-nWXXrK-nU9LQV-nU94XJ-o1hbkg-oboGqv-k6uTHr-nVeicS-obCBRg-pH3sc3-o7y1m1-oSEhZR-5Qxwpa-nU9kRA-nUgafS-nQhDjH-nYnCXJ-nYeD5s-q3t2W2-nU9rWc-p112YV-nZYZG2-nZZ2di-o1agh1-o1brYG-oEsqTd">Damien Thorne</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When I <a href="http://journal.sjdm.org/14/141026a/jdm141026a.pdf">studied bookmakers’ odds</a> across that tournament, I found the profit margins on different bets varied remarkably. The size of the profit margin was related to the number of possible outcomes in a given bet. Bets on which a team would win a match had the lowest profit margins – 4.5% on average. (Note this means even these plain vanilla bets have a higher profit margin than FOBTs.)</p>
<p>When it comes to betting on the scoreline of a game, Netherlands to win 2-0, say, there are many more possibilities than for the match outcome. The average gross margin on these bets was 21.9%. As for bets on which player would score the first goal, these have even more permutations – there are 20 outfield players, after all, or no one might score. The average margin on these bets was 32.3%. Meanwhile, aggregated bets that combine different outcomes like first scorer and who wins <a href="http://www.soccerwidow.com/football-gambling/betting-knowledge/systems/case-studies/impact-overround-accumulators-multiple-bets/">can also</a> have much higher profit margins than bets on a single match’s outcome. </p>
<p>No surprise that when I looked at the bookmakers’ advertising, both on TV and in their shop windows, I found it almost entirely dominated by scoreline, first goalscorer and aggregated bets. These trends have continued; in work I will be publishing soon, I find that Premier League TV gambling advertising in January and February of last year was similarly geared toward bets with high bookmaker profit margins. </p>
<h2>When Saturday comes RIP</h2>
<p>There are also endless opportunities to get in on this action. Football betting was a low frequency affair when the majority of matches were on Saturday afternoons. Now high-profile matches take place almost every night of the week. To make it easier still, <a href="https://www.betfair.com/exchange/inplay">“in play” betting</a> lets punters place bets during a match, with the option to “cash out” for a sure money amount before the result. Combine this with the high profit margins and modern football betting has become a high-risk gamble for the average customer. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153048/original/image-20170117-23071-2xd3xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">OK Coral?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Philip Newall</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is therefore a strong argument that the UK government should do something about these bets as part of its reforms of betting. Gambling losses <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gambling-losses-rise-sharply-to-300-per-person-cnx0phq5n">are running</a> at record highs – £286 per adult per year in the UK and up by a third between 2010 and 2015. Your chance of beating the bookies really depends on whether you can restrict yourself to bets with a low average profit margin.</p>
<p>Capping the maximum margin is one option for the government – though FOBTs are proof you need to do more than that. The govermnment could also aim to educate and disclose, similar to what is done with alcohol. Or it could restrict or ban this type of advertising or even these types of bets altogether. At any rate, it is time for a debate. “The house always wins” is an old saying in gambling. These days, bookmakers are increasingly taking it to extremes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70830/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Newall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fixed odds betting terminals attract all the attention, but something alarming is being overlooked.Philip Newall, PhD Graduate, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604942016-06-06T16:10:04Z2016-06-06T16:10:04ZBrexit betting odds: lesson from Scotland is not promising for Leave<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125354/original/image-20160606-25972-16i5gut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Just before they burst. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=iU2dBgT4PbF3k_J8T7EZMA&searchterm=scottish%20referendum&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=218099434">Andrea Obzerova</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The runners and riders in the EU referendum are making the final turn into the home straight. Both teams are jostling for position and the race is becoming increasingly acrimonious. The Leave campaign has abandoned the economic arguments and instead is focusing almost exclusively on migration. </p>
<p>The Remain campaign continues to release dire warnings of a post-Brexit world that seems to include all ten plagues of Egypt except slaughter of the firstborn. Following some <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/poll-eu-brexit-lead-opinium">good polls</a> for Leave in the past couple of days, the poll of polls <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">currently points to</a> a 50-50 dead heat. </p>
<p>Bookies too have been adjusting the odds offered as they seek to maximise their expected gain from the outcome. Over the last few weeks, this resulted in a substantial fall in the implied probability of a Leave outcome – and as I wrote in my <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-campaign-is-doomed-if-bookmakers-are-right-again-57514">previous piece</a> about Brexit odds, the weight of betting was far less promising for Leave than the opinion polls before that anyway. </p>
<p>On April 26, the probability of a vote to leave from the <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com">oddschecker.com</a> average of some 20 bookmakers’ odds stood at 0.35, meaning slightly better than a one in three chance. By May 22 it had fallen to 0.22 or almost one in five. Perhaps the tsunami of warnings from national and international organisations of the economic consequences of Brexit was being factored into punters’ assessments of how the vote will go.</p>
<p>Since then, the news for the Brexit camp has got slightly better. The slide was arrested on May 27 and there has been a modest recovery which took the probability of Brexit up to 0.30 by June 6. Perhaps punters were thinking the switch of emphasis to migration will carry more voter appeal: or that they are more confident of a high turnout among Leave supporters. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-238" class="tc-infographic" height="610" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/238/33b50a32b76a46a5e309241d24d47e9c755bf389/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Of course, these predicted probabilities do not mean that a Leave outcome will not occur – just that it is seen as rather unlikely. They reflect all of the information available to punters. This may be drawn from a wide variety of sources – opinion polls, press coverage, personal contacts and so on. The point has been <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bookmakers-prediction-eu-referendum-brexit-winner-a7046966.html">made elsewhere</a> that punters are not representative of the population as a whole. But they don’t need to be to use this information intelligently. </p>
<p>Indeed, not all those betting need to act in an informed way. So long as there are sufficient well informed punters willing to place their bets where they see an opportunity for gain based on the current odds, the odds will come to reflect the underlying chance that the event occurs (with the small complication that bookies always build in a profit margin).</p>
<p>Will the odds change substantially over the remainder of the campaign? It seems unlikely that they can change sufficiently to suggest that a Leave outcome is more likely than a Remain outcome. Nothing in the history of betting odds suggests that a swing of 24 percentage points is possible over a three-week period. </p>
<h2>Ecosse and effect</h2>
<p>The Scottish referendum is a useful precedent. Events during the last few weeks included some surprises which perhaps punters had not anticipated. Most important was the <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-independence/60436/scottish-independence-odds-bookmakers-shorten-odds-on-no">closing of the gap</a> between the Yes and No polling. </p>
<p>This had a dramatic effect on media coverage and on the politics during the run-up to the vote. It also influenced the bookies’ odds (see graphic below), increasing the probability of a Yes outcome by 16 percentage points between the 23rd day and the ninth day before the polls. But then the upward momentum petered out and by the time of the vote the odds had fallen back to more or less where they had started. </p>
<p><strong>Betting probability of a Yes vote in Scottish referendum</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Source: oddschecker.com.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On June 5, 18 days before the Brexit vote, the probability of a Leave vote stood at 0.30 or 30%. In Scotland, the probability of a Yes vote at the same point before the independence referendum was slightly lower at 0.20. </p>
<p>While the implied probability of the UK leaving the EU is currently higher than the implied probability of Scotland leaving the UK was at that stage, it will take a bigger and more sustained change of events in the last few days of the campaign than that which happened in Scotland to persuade bookies to offer anything like evens on a vote for Brexit. </p>
<p>To see whether Johnson, Gove and co can make it happen, bookmark this piece. The graphic on the EU referendum betting odds will keep updating as we near polling day. </p>
<h2>Update, June 23</h2>
<p>It looks to me that the betting markets have made up their mind that the status quo is the likely outcome. Like in the Scottish referendum, a late surge towards the more radical alternative petered out in the last week of the campaign, perhaps because of the incessant warnings about the potential risks of change. </p>
<p>Based on the odds being offered on different outcomes for the size of the Remain vote, the most likely outcome is Remain 53.5% – Leave 46.5%. Of course there is a margin of error associated with this estimate. Gamblers have a financial incentive in making the correct prediction, but they could be wrong. We will soon know one way or the other.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but the views expressed in this piece are entirely his own. </span></em></p>The swing in betting sentiment the month before the Scottish indyref tells us Boris has his work cut out.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578992016-04-21T14:21:28Z2016-04-21T14:21:28ZThere’s no such thing as a natural-born gambler<p>The fight to recruit online gamblers in the UK is at fever pitch. If you googled “play live blackjack” in March, it cost an advertiser £148.51 to be the first ad that came up. In fact, 77 of March’s top 100 most expensive keywords <a href="http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/04/gambling-and-finance-are-the-most-expensive-google-keywords-in-the-uk/">were about gambling</a>. With this relentless clamour to grab attention, you might think gambling was hardwired into human nature; that we were doomed to cave in to the enticements of bookmakers and casinos.</p>
<p>In truth, huge swathes of the planet just didn’t gamble. No cards, no dice, not even a coin flip, and we’re not talking about a thousand years ago either; in some areas it is just 50 years since gambling arrived. We can say with confidence that 150 years ago betting on contests was absent from the indigenous peoples of most of South America, almost all of Australia, most of the Pacific Islands including the vast islands comprising New Guinea and New Zealand, most Inuit and Siberian peoples, and a great many peoples of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459790500097913#.VxEcF3q0dZE">southern Africa</a>.</p>
<p>My own fieldwork in Highland Papua New Guinea showed the introduction of gambling occurred <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ocea.5057/full">in the 1950s</a> – in other words, within living memory. If whole populations don’t or didn’t gamble, well it can’t very well be a universal human trait. So why didn’t they?</p>
<p>Those looking for an easy answer would say that these people were isolated and marginal, but we know that was not the case at all. For instance, there have been huge polities <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hAKratAxR18C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=heckenberger+amazon&ots=kDM1ForUa2&sig=U3m-xJrcTafP35mWvKhYVbMI2Ck#v=onepage&q=heckenberger%20amazon&f=false">spanning the Amazon</a>, and trade networks that bridged the Pacific <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/93/4/1381.short">well before Captain Cook</a>. How easy it would have been to pick up some dice, or make them when you got home. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119251/original/image-20160419-13895-1p616qa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On a roll.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chloeloe/3154156985/in/photolist-5NHSYZ-54KZLr-7Mr633-5mA87S-4rzxyz-bgkLhe-4z5xaM-qASLkN-4rzu5z-4z9LTQ-7MoQqn-pPJzHF-co9vKG-finJwn-7MqPPy-afrtAs-nqegmH-7osvJa-cWTv5y-4z5wrn-aVJFE2-hVU638-5iykF5-a74fKK-5JurNF-6cTxd-a74fJF-6MeopE-5fea2T-5CeD1U-7s3eo6-akFreF-qVqYmm-7mwezf-4twStK-qF8SKA-pY4Bic-9Ld2R7-93ZZCX-4z9Kkf-6ia7YQ-4ZwhvV-7MmSri-qVd5X6-y4AWF-63QT6B-nqecf5-7nawCw-roCJtM-qHFQ25">Christa Lohman/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Risk aversion</h2>
<p>You might well counter that these people were just isolated from “us”. In fact, contact with the West and the presence of gambling just <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/3846111/the-origins-of-the-economy-a-comparative-study-of">don’t correlate</a>.</p>
<p>But lets say that non-gamblers were too far removed from the great gambling traditions to pick it up directly, despite the evidence. The enormous variety of gambling and the breadth of forms it has taken across the world both <a href="http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/lib_articles/458/">in the past</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ocea.5061/full">today</a> strongly suggests that gambling is not a hard idea to invent. The real question should therefore be why was gambling not worth inventing or adopting? Under what conditions is gambling a silly idea?</p>
<p>Another piece of common wisdom says that gambling is more prevalent among people who face greater risk in their lives, but this is <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/3846111/the-origins-of-the-economy-a-comparative-study-of">not the answer either</a>. While the correlation holds for some people in some countries that already gamble, many of the peoples who didn’t gamble at all had a far riskier time of things than peoples who do.</p>
<p>So there is nothing innate about gambling that simply must bubble to the surface, but this doesn’t mean gambling addiction is not real or serious either. Many of those indigenous peoples who once didn’t gamble now have <a href="http://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/49224">very high levels of problem gambling</a>. It is one thing to say gambling is not in our genes, and quite another to say that some people aren’t predisposed to develop a dependency on gambling when it is around them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119255/original/image-20160419-13895-1xrgdsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gambling… Summer Fete style.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dhedwards/14273268344/in/photolist-nKhepw-8pMK7N-8zuMdE-2ye9pK-cuoSK-jnX8q-8LQA67-fEMob-4sFiuv-4LYsXu-btYryw-cjaEvL-spYj9t-wrMR-opveUn-7mtZ1C-225wyg-8YJox7-dVy7PS-spQrUL-o8j5Pn-spYkha-4xvCH3-onLyDJ-aeZs6j-fZBSV-o8j7ie-orxo6Z-em7185-4J2ptT-dbwtFu-9AmdD-puw6AV-6P5gFb-o8hXe6-4XJsbd-dLdk1p-DutKoG-rt12ks-2XUPVb-5igU9A-ptGdis-ansLfr-7GbEtd-pnA7Zy-4vF3vv-e3RUd6-9gYtMZ-aztFgR-5h2Lvj">David Edwards/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If it wasn’t isolation, and it wasn’t lack of risk, or lack of imagination, why have many of us gambled so much while many others who didn’t at all have now taken it up so quickly? Simple. We have money and a stratified society with a lot of economic inequality and they didn’t.</p>
<h2>Easy money</h2>
<p>Money may seem a self-evident thing, but it is surprisingly hard to make a hard and fast distinction between what we all know to be money and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24452477-how-would-you-like-to-pay">things like shell currencies</a>. Like money itself, its definition can easily slip through our fingers. What people who have adopted money tell anthropologists, however, is that what matters is that money has more uses, is more portable, more easily hidden, and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.12047/full">easier to spend</a>. Many people in those societies that were new to money took up gambling as a way to access or direct this slippery new kind of wealth. </p>
<p>Inequality is another good indicator for gambling, both <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwiCkKGQlZHMAhVFHxoKHaKHAF0QFghQMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bramlancee.eu%2Fdocs%2FBolLanceeSteijn2013SS.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEPn0Ebylelc39arJai1dKAxKhmQg&sig2=qiqb5Bnyfe__Y0MAs11DbQ&cad=rja">statistically</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ocea.5056/full">on the ground</a>. Where I did my fieldwork, gambling arrived with the return of the first migrant labourers, young men who, along with a knowledge of gambling, brought back what seemed like huge wealth, and who had the potential to upend traditional <a href="https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/3389">hierarchies</a>.</p>
<p>As with so many non-gambling societies, it was new inequalities that made gambling seem a good idea for some. And for all its problems, one has to admit that it is a very exploratory, profound way to engage with money. In gambling, by mutual agreement, players pit their monies against each other, making less into more (or more into less) while cutting out the laborious market system. This also explains why <a href="http://www.daniellazar.com/wp-content/uploads/Report-on-an-Investigation-of-the-Peasant-Movement-in-Hunan.doc">Mao Tse-Tung</a> and the leaders of so many other communist (read anti-inequality) uprisings made banning gambling a first priority.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119260/original/image-20160419-13919-14fpnnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Turning in his grave..</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/25836383@N06/2620448049/in/photolist-dN9bma-9vBV61-4ZytUM">Steven Woodward/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Joining the game</h2>
<p>What does all this tell us about our lust for online gambling, which seems so lucrative for Google as well as the betting firms? We have been gambling for a long time, long enough for it to seep into our collective psyche and appear completely natural, but as recently as medieval times our kings blamed our gambling on <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1-mss7-OStgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=newman+2001+daily+life+middle&ots=FmUJSokmZk&sig=4cNSgMmjM5rF2ZewDu5otceeR4w#v=onepage&q=newman%202001%20daily%20life%20middle&f=false">French influence</a>. </p>
<p>We have gone through fits and spurts of gambling, but probably the most important was in the <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oJkODAk8j_cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=reith+age+of+chance&ots=LAYQt2yjFa&sig=qnHniZvAj4rHJm2T4OJB1sr19PM#v=onepage&q=reith%20age%20of%20chance&f=false">17th century</a>, when mercantilism upset the economic order of the day, while new forms of accurate measurement and a more widespread currency system spurred us to think more in numbers, bending our minds towards gambling. </p>
<p>It is certainly profitable for the gambling industry that we think of ourselves as a nation of instinctive gamblers. But think again. That the risk taker in us becomes an online gambler tells us much more about how we internalise present day economic inequality and the way technology makes money ever easier to spend than it does about our animal instincts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57899/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J. Pickles received funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council, and the Royal Anthropological Institute. </span></em></p>The desire to fritter away our pay packet on the roll of a dice may not be hardwired at all. So where does it come from?Anthony Pickles, Research Fellow in Anthropology at Trinity College, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/575142016-04-12T09:00:08Z2016-04-12T09:00:08ZBrexit campaign is doomed – if bookmakers are right again<p>As we edge closer to the EU referendum on June 23, the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum-polls-show-yes-no-voters-almost-evenly-poised-1552574">latest opinion polls</a> put the
Remain and Leave campaigns either neck and neck or at least close together. </p>
<p>But the reputation of opinion polls <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35308129">has plummeted</a> following their abject failure to predict the winner of last year’s general election. According to a <a href="http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2016/01/polling-enquiry.page">recent independent review</a> by Professor Patrick Sturgis of the University of Southampton, inadequate sampling procedures led to biased estimates of party support.</p>
<p>Prediction markets, which are often based on betting odds, are an increasingly popular alternative for predicting election outcomes. When you look at their past performance, they have been <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Forsythe/publication/2836398_Results_from_a_Dozen_Years_of_Election_Futures_Markets_Research/links/02e7e5150a9e57a0fe000000.pdf">relatively successful</a>. Where opinion polling tends to be irregular and noisy because of the different sampling methods used by the various companies involved, betting data is collected continuously and on a consistent basis.</p>
<p>Prediction markets successfully forecast the outcome of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">Scottish referendum</a> of 2014, for example. Whereas the opinion polls <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls">suggested</a> the outcome was uncertain and increasingly hard to call nearer the vote, the betting odds always <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-indyref-why-the-bookies-expect-no-to-win-31855">suggested that</a> the probability of a majority vote for independence was quite small. </p>
<p>So what are the odds for the Brexit referendum? The most recent data, as you can see from the chart below, suggests that the probability of a Leave vote is around 30%, with the chance of a Remain vote being correspondingly around 70%. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-238" class="tc-infographic" height="610" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/238/33b50a32b76a46a5e309241d24d47e9c755bf389/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>These data are based on <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com">www.oddschecker.com</a>, which lists more than 20 companies which have offered odds on the referendum at different times. The most active is <a href="https://www.matchbook.com">Matchbook</a>, which frequently offers multiple small variations in its odds during a single day. The odds from the different companies are transformed into estimates of the average daily probability for each outcome, going back as far as last May if you click the “All” box on the chart. </p>
<h2>Events, dear boy …</h2>
<p>You can also see the timing of some key events which might have been expected to influence the odds, such as when David Cameron <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35621079">announced</a> the referendum date. When an event doesn’t make much difference – that announcement did not – it might be because it was expected and has therefore already been discounted by punters.</p>
<p>On the other hand, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/18/iain-duncan-smith-resigns-from-cabinet-over-disability-cuts">Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation</a> was arguably a surprise, but it had little impact on the odds. This suggests that those placing bets did not feel this event would have a significant effect on the referendum outcome. </p>
<p>Similarly, Tory leadership pretender Boris Johnson’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-confirms-he-will-campaign-for-uk-to-leave-eu-referendum-a6887596.html">decision</a> to throw his weight behind the Leave campaign had little impact.</p>
<p>The only good news for Brexit supporters is that there has been some whittling away of the advantage enjoyed by the Remain campaign since the beginning of March. When the referendum was called, the probability of leaving was around 29%. It fell to 27% in early March but has been rising since, before levelling off in the last few days of that month. </p>
<p>The most recent data at time of writing, for April 7, suggests that the probability of Britain leaving the EU has now reached 33% – a one in three chance. Even so, there is still a clear feeling among those with a monetary interest in the outcome that the UK will remain part of the European Union. </p>
<p>Indeed, the highest odds in favour of a Leave vote were last November, giving a 39% probability. Save this page and we’ll keep updating the chart as we get closer to the referendum. If you want to cut through the noise of the opinion polls, these are probably the numbers to watch. </p>
<h2>Update, April 26</h2>
<p>The latest data from the betting odds show a significant reduction in the probability of a Leave vote in the last week. It started with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-the-treasurys-brexit-numbers-add-up-58086">Treasury’s gloomy view</a> of Britain’s prospects outside the EU, which brought the slight increase in the leave probability from the beginning of April to a halt. </p>
<p>The downturn accelerated after Barack Obama <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36120808">argued that</a> the UK would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the US. Even though he moderated this statement subsequently, the implied probability of leaving the EU fell from 0.34 to 0.31 last week – the sharpest fall in the bookies’ odds so far. It is not possible to show whether <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/04/25/boris-johnson-no-platformed-over-obamas-ancestry-comments/">Boris Johnson’s intervention</a> further accelerated the decline, but it is interesting that his decision to join the Leave campaign has also coincided with a period of lengthening odds on that outcome.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but this article does not represent the views of the research councils. </span></em></p>Sorry Boris, those with a bet at stake think we’re staying put.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/336092014-10-30T06:28:08Z2014-10-30T06:28:08ZElection 2015 betting odds: the bookies think the UKIP surge has been overcooked<p>An important milestone for political junkies is fast approaching: on Friday November 7 it will be six months to go until next year’s UK general election. At this stage it looks almost impossible to call, with both Labour and the Conservatives struggling to build any momentum. And with the Liberal Democrats seemingly heading for an iceberg, only Nigel Farage and the Scottish nationalists seem to have anything to smile about. </p>
<p>In the run-up to the Scottish referendum <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-bookies-having-a-change-of-heart-about-the-scottish-independence-referendum-31147">I wrote</a> several <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-indyref-why-the-bookies-expect-no-to-win-31855">pieces for</a> The Conversation analysing the betting patterns on Yes and No. We now know that the bookies successfully predicted the result and gave useful pointers to geographical voting at an earlier stage than many of the analysts. Will the same be true of the UK election? This is the first of several articles that will monitor how the odds develop as we get nearer to May 7. </p>
<h2>Current betting</h2>
<p>There is not much between Labour and Conservative at this point. According to the average odds of more than 20 bookmakers, Labour’s odds have been improving lately and the Conservatives’ have been moving slightly out. UKIP has been the biggest mover, shifting from 44/1 to 40/1 in a week, while the Liberal Democrat vote has drifted out to 308/1. Some bookies are offering 1000/1 on a Lib Dem win, which is not even odds you would see in FA Cup betting.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=159&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=159&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=159&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63192/original/y765qcxm-1414591522.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Source: average odds of leading bookmakers on October 27.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the key questions is whether there will be a majority. According to the average odds, no overall majority is the most likely at this stage (10/11). The prospect of a Labour majority is sitting at around 2/1, which the bookies think more likely than the Conservative equivalent (10/3). </p>
<p>As for coalition prospects, Lab-Lib is the most likely at 4/1. A repeat of the Con-Lib coalition is priced at 11/2. The chances of a minority Labour or Conservative government are at about 7/1 apiece, with the Conservatives currently slightly ahead. As for a Con-UKIP coalition, it is at more than 11/1. </p>
<p>Those with money to burn might like to mull the more distant possibilities. A Con-Lab coalition is at 50/1, more likely than a Lab-UKIP coalition (66/1) or even Lab-SNP (100/1). </p>
<p>If we look at Labour’s odds over the past few months, there is very little change. They have sat in a band between 3/5 and 4/5, which you would expect at this relatively early stage of the campaign because you get fewer big bets that would disrupt them. Far more lively have been the UKIP odds. The figures show that there is no real consensus for what their vote will be, with the range for an election victory between 25/1 (888.com) to 66/1 (Betway). </p>
<h2>The finer points</h2>
<p>One of the big questions for Labour is whether its Scottish vote holds up. There has been much talk that it will collapse on the back of their support for the No vote in the referendum as working class voters desert them for partnering with the Tories. </p>
<p>The bookies are currently predicting between 13 and 14 seats for SNP – it currently has six. As recently as April they were predicting just one or two gains. Since the referendum in September, the prediction has risen by five seats. </p>
<p>This is a bigger jump than UKIP or the Lib Dems over the same period. Since August the UKIP forecast has risen from three seats to six, while for the Lib Dems it has dropped since July from 34 to 31. Meanwhile Labour is forecast 306 seats and the Conservatives 276, which would mean that Labour would need to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to secure a majority. As for the Greens, they are an even bet to win a seat.</p>
<p>On the question of who becomes the next prime minister it is nearly neck and neck between the two main contenders, with Ed Miliband at 4/5 and David Cameron at evens. Boris Johnson comes in ahead of the rest of the pack at 23/3. Some way behind are Theresa May and Yvette Cooper. An alternative is to bet on the next PM being any female, which is priced at 5/1 (compared to 1/10 for a male PM). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63220/original/8zyt5cgg-1414605137.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally on the Europe question, the bookies seem to be predicting that the move towards UKIP and pulling out of the EU is a short-term blip. At present the odds are 3/1 on the UK leaving the EU by 2020. But beware: the chances were priced at 8/1 in May, so like UKIP’s prospects, this question is still very much in flux. </p>
<p>What does all this tell us? Labour is still in front despite all the anti-Miliband coverage. The Lib Dem collapse and the UKIP surge may be less marked than some people have been predicting, but the prediction of an increase for SNP seems on-track with bookies, with a doubling of seats predicted since the referendum. Whether this feels reassuring or disappointing, watch this space to see how the figures change in the months ahead. The bookies make their money on providing attractive odds, but are continually appraising a range of indicators.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Buchanan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An important milestone for political junkies is fast approaching: on Friday November 7 it will be six months to go until next year’s UK general election. At this stage it looks almost impossible to call…Bill Buchanan, Head, Centre for Distributed Computing, Networks and Security, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/333572014-10-30T01:44:01Z2014-10-30T01:44:01ZHow betting works – and why the Melbourne Cup skews the odds<p>Australia’s iconic sporting event – the Melbourne Cup – will see more than 100,000 punters pack into Flemington Racecourse this Tuesday, while those at work around the country pause to tune in to The Race. </p>
<p>More than 700 million people worldwide are expected to watch the 154th running of the Melbourne Cup – and it will be all the more exciting for those who have a little money invested in the result. </p>
<p>For those casual punters looking to make their one yearly bet on the horses, we take a quick look at how the odds and payouts work and what (if any) sensible betting choices can be made.</p>
<h2>How odds work</h2>
<p>The odds given to each of the 24 horses running in the Melbourne Cup this year (before any scratchings) are typically presented as a <em>dollar amount</em>. For example, at the time of writing, Protectionist was listed at A$7. This means that for every dollar you bet on Protectionist to win, you will receive A$7 back, should it win. This includes the A$1 you bet, so your profit will be A$6 per dollar bet.</p>
<p>To convert this dollar amount to <em>losing:winning odds</em>, you can mentally split the A$7 payout into the A$6 of profit and A$1 outlay and read off odds of 6:1. To take another example, Fawkner at A$8.50 (at time of writing) corresponds to odds of 7.5:1, or 15:2 if we double both numbers to make them nice and whole.</p>
<p>If you’d prefer to convert these odds to <em>probabilities</em>, you’ll need to add up the two numbers to obtain the total number of possibilities (winning or losing). Protectionist’s odds of 6:1 means that he’s expected to have 6 losses for every 1 win. That’s one win out of (6+1) races, so the probability he will win is 1 in 7. Note that we could have started from the dollar amount – A$7 – and gone straight to the probability of 1 in 7.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63113/original/mtgbqt4g-1414550091.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/muehlinghaus/230340912">Henning Mühlinghaus/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But how are these chances figured out in the first place?</p>
<p>In contrast to games such as Two-Up, where the chances of seeing two heads on a pair of flipped coins can be easily calculated, the situation is far too complex in horse-racing, involving far too many variables for the probability of a given horse’s victory to be calculated. </p>
<p>Instead, bookmakers take an initial list of odds – say it’s 1 in 24 (or 23:1, or A$24) for each horse (although the reality is a little more complicated). Then the bookmakers watch how the punters are betting and continually adjust these odds to “balance the books” and ensure a profit. In a nutshell, the more bets a horse attracts, the lower its payout will be adjusted (and vice-versa).</p>
<p>This means that <em>odds are continually changing</em> in the lead-up to the big race. For this reason, it’s important to know the difference between making a fixed odds bet and a parimutuel bet (also known as a totes bet). Also, for most off track betting only totaliser bets are legal.</p>
<p>In a <strong>fixed odds</strong> bet, the odds displayed at the time you make your bet are locked in for your bet. Although the odds may change later, if you place a bet at A$7 you are guaranteed a A$7 payout for every dollar you bet, even if the odds shortened to A$3 after you placed the bet. (Be assured any legal odds maker knows more about the true odds than all but the most skilled betters.)</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.melbournecup.com/racing/betting/">2014 Melbourne Cup</a>, fixed odds bets can be made when betting on a horse to win or place (in 1st, 2nd or 3rd). </p>
<p>But the fixed odds system cannot be used for more exotic bets – fairly recent inventions to get folks out to the tracks – such as a quinella (picking the horses who place 1st and 2nd) or trifecta (picking the horses who finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd).</p>
<p>In a <strong>parimutuel bet</strong> – also known as a totaliser (or totes) bet – the odds displayed at the time you make your bet are only an approximation of what your payout will be if you win. This approximation improves as the race draws closer.</p>
<p>If you place a bet on a particular horse to win, and it does, you will split a pool of winnings amongst all other punters who made the same bet. So parimutuel bets are like betting on most state or national lotteries (except that the lotteries keep way more of the money for “good causes”).</p>
<h2>Why odds are skewed on big race days</h2>
<p>The crucial difference between the fixed odds bet and the totes bet is that in the latter, your payout is unknown until after the race is over. Since you are in a betting pool when you make a totes bet, the more punters make the same bet as you, the more ways you will have to split the pool. Hence, if you enter into a totes bet, you will want to avoid what others are doing!</p>
<p>In particular, since there are a very large number of people betting on the Melbourne Cup relative to other horse races, this can lead to some weird skewing of odds. </p>
<p>For example, the payout of the favourite winning gets smaller and smaller as more punters take that bet. If a large number of punters bet on the favourite to win, the payout can actually drop to such a large extent that it becomes less than the payout for the favourite simply placing! </p>
<p>Taking a less common bet (such as betting on your horse to place), which has higher chances of paying out (since your chosen horse only has to finish within the top three for you to collect) then becomes an effective betting strategy. A <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-05/placing-bets-on-california-chrome-read-this-first">Businessweek article</a> explains this phenomena (in the context of American horse racing) in more detail.</p>
<p>Since the payouts in totes bets are an approximation that gets better as the race draws nearer, it’s often worth waiting before placing your bet. In contrast, if you really want to back the favourite, perhaps fixed odds are the best way to go (so you avoid your winnings being diluted as more people make the same bet). In that case you’d want to get your bet in reasonably early, before the odds on the favourite drop too much. </p>
<h2>What horse should you bet the house on?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, it takes years of experience and following the progress of the participating horses to have good prospects for betting – and even then, you can only ever have good long-term prospects. Success in any given race is never guaranteed. That said, you can increase your chances of a win by a small amount with a little care – you can certainly get better chances than the random draw of the office sweepstake!</p>
<p>To that end, we’ll finish with some advice from the experts, which we’ll certainly be following as we make our own bets on race day.</p>
<p>Long-time punter John Beedle of Ashfield offered the following strategy to the novice punter when one of us spoke to him this week:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most important things to look at are the state of the track, the experience of the horse and the betting […] once the field is set, look up the odds in the paper and make your pick from within the top six horses. Don’t back the favourite, they rarely win and lots of other punters will be betting on them anyway. </p>
<p>Make sure your pick has already won a race over at least 2,400m (the Melbourne Cup is 3,200m, and some horses just fall to pieces over that distance). If rain falls on the track, make sure your pick can handle a wet track. I’d say place a bet each way (that is, a bet that your horse either wins or places). If you make a bet at A$4 – A$7, you probably have about the same chance of winning as the favourite […] but you stand to gain more money.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Long-time bookmaker Jack Ashman of New Lambton Heights has perhaps the most important advice to offer:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The worst thing a punter can do is to chase their money – that’s how they get into trouble. It’s a failure of the human brain […] they think they can get it back but they end up losing too much money before realising it’s not as easy as that. </p>
<p>One particular punter lost A$1,000 on an almost sure thing, which was probably more than he could really afford to lose. Then another sure thing came up, so he put another A$1,000 on it, and by the end of the afternoon he’d lost A$6,000. Not good! Set a fixed amount that you’re willing to bet and have the discipline to stick to it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We hope you have an exciting race and a fun afternoon – and remember to gamble responsibly. A A$10 bet is more than enough to get the blood pumping as your horse rounds the turn into the final dash …</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Borwein (Jon) receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Rose does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s iconic sporting event – the Melbourne Cup – will see more than 100,000 punters pack into Flemington Racecourse this Tuesday, while those at work around the country pause to tune in to The Race…Michael Rose, PhD Candidate, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of NewcastleJonathan Borwein (Jon), Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/311472014-09-02T05:30:20Z2014-09-02T05:30:20ZAre bookies having a change of heart about the Scottish independence referendum?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57919/original/rwfy38rs-1409592501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'I'll give yer 6/1 on a Yes victory round the back.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/phiznlil/6951135912/in/photolist-bAfowU-jSG8oX-9VjGGe-6kyhd-7BKQ4M-dujuNZ-dujuWp-duq6uG-dujump-9NJKvV-9NJJd6-kBKpCt-eKSA3-mAdUDJ-dguYLM-f3KETk-7kPv8B-eZj45z-9Ky4Pa-e45rgA-eZj46V-mwG5hF-eZvprE-9KATxW-bBMJco-eZvptd-6uuL8X-6TkQET-eZj46p-eZj44i-eZvpqY-eZvprY-6TkQDe-eZj43k-bQGqWg-orz6jg-e45qPy-auRXuq-auRXM1-auPhr8-auPgoT-bzuHfi-LZtEE-4zcygE-mAdV4S-fHmB9-dHydhd-68pe3R-85ttUC-6o2xSu">Phil Burns</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Debate in the referendum continues to rage over to what extent we can trust the opinion polls. While the Yes side have most recently being putting their faith in the circa one million undecided voters who <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/could-the-missing-million-swing-it-to-yes/">will supposedly</a> swing the outcome their way, one group that arguably deserves more attention as we approach September 18 is the betting industry. </p>
<p>Bookmakers decide odds through a combination of demand from customers and by monitoring a wide range of communication channels, such as newspaper reports and polls, to produce a daily running analysis of where sentiment is heading. </p>
<p>What follows is an analysis of what 23 leading bookmakers have been telling us about the outcome over the past five months (April 1 to August 31). It should provide some sobering reality to those Yes supporters, while also offering them hope for the weeks ahead.</p>
<h2>Slide in August</h2>
<p>The odds of the major bookmakers have tended to be fairly consistent with each other. Yet they are starting to diverge, with August 31 showing the lowest at 4 in decimal odds for Coral (<a href="http://www.sportinglife.com/bettingzone/converter">meaning about 3/1</a>) and Betfred and the highest at 5.46 (around 9/2) for Betfair. There’s also been a general trend downwards for the No vote in the past couple of weeks, which possibly reflects the recent opinion polls.</p>
<p><strong>Average odds for Yes vote (Apr to Aug 2014)</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57908/original/yj88yxxn-1409588682.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The two TV debates between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond both had a marked effect on the betting odds. Before the first debate, which was <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-darling-draws-first-blood-by-homing-in-on-salmond-weak-spot-30191">generally seen as</a> a Darling victory, the odds for a Yes vote had been narrowing. After it, they rose steeply up.</p>
<p>In the second part of the month, the Yes odds started to come back in. After another lurch upwards just before the second TV debate, the Yes odds came in sharply on the back of <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-salmond-strikes-back-in-tv-debate-but-will-it-be-a-game-changer-30892">what was seen as</a> a victory for Salmond. </p>
<p><strong>Odds for Yes vote (Aug 13 to Sept 1)</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57929/original/bj38jh44-1409595475.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Time to bet the farm?</h2>
<p>By August 31 the odds for a No vote were 1/5, and approaching 3/1 for Yes. This is quite a change from a couple of weeks ago. On August 11 some bookmakers were quoting a No vote at 1/10, which is the kind of betting you would get for Manchester City against a team about seven leagues below – let’s say Tiverton Town. </p>
<p>In other words, the vote seemed certain for a No at that point. The odds indicated that the bookmakers wanted to limit the number of punters putting money on a one-horse race. But now the odds suggest that the bookmakers are less sure, and can see benefits in reducing their No vote odds and taking on bets. </p>
<p>The Yes vote has gone in the opposite direction. It drifted out to about 11/2 after the first debate, much wider than the current price. At 1/5 for No and 3/1 for Yes, the football analogy is now more like Manchester City v Luton Town – two teams separated by three leagues. If you can bear to switch sports for a moment, the bookmakers are highlighting that it’s now back as a two-horse race.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57921/original/sypnrd68-1409592905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Know what ah mean?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/neildorgan/3531049076/in/photolist-6o2xSu-EpWKQ-feDoeQ-7tRAFR-7tVvqS-7tVvUy-7tVub3-5yjsMM-3TWqyh-5tSfxB-5tSfrT-ejaafC-4hnarf-6FTe96-cjByE9-56Kjo-9igjLw-dXGJoo-5Bqf1G-H8bi5-7tRzoB-fozqfw-4H3Ykd-8bt8vb-7UHDC6-7ULVzA-aHyQpH-aTRB2x-9NJKvV-bV22xL-mFQJpH-7UsAXx-7UsBz8-6xPoav-7UsDAp-9NJJd6-7UvP41-eDqKp-7UHCHH-eiuRH9-4WemoB-8btak3-a154S9-8eVvQh-7XcJHX-6xSvnA-bonTGJ-bAj9YH-bBhTnp-b8uvqv">Neil Dorgan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If this trend continues for the next two weeks, the Yes vote will sit at 2.47. This is not much higher than evens. At that point, the No campaign has a real game on its hands.</p>
<p>Keep watching the betting market over the next couple of weeks, as they are more likely to get it right than anyone else. The next few days should show if this trend continues. And keep a close eye on whether the Yes odds narrow beyond the 3/1 barrier or settle at that figure. As betting experts will know, that 3/1 level is often seen as decisive in determining whether a two-horse race is too close to call or has a clear favourite – I’ll update the latest odds daily at <a href="http://asecuritysite.com/scotbetting.html">this link</a>.</p>
<p>As things stand, the bookmakers obviously still strongly favour No, but the speed at which the odds are changing will make the betting prices essential viewing between now and September 18.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Buchanan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Debate in the referendum continues to rage over to what extent we can trust the opinion polls. While the Yes side have most recently being putting their faith in the circa one million undecided voters…Bill Buchanan, Head, Centre for Distributed Computing, Networks and Security, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.