tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/betting-747/articlesBetting – The Conversation2023-02-07T13:35:20Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1982852023-02-07T13:35:20Z2023-02-07T13:35:20ZI treat people with gambling disorder – and I’m starting to see more and more young men who are betting on sports<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508172/original/file-20230204-5389-wfiqrk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C16%2C1014%2C793&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many young sports bettors think they're knowledgeable enough to 'beat the system.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation via DALL-E 2</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OcbcVXYAAAAJ&hl=en">As a therapist who treats people with gambling problems</a>, I’ve noticed a shift over the past few years – not only in the profile of the typical clients I treat, but also in the way their gambling problems develop.</p>
<p>In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court made the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/sports-betting-ncaa-supreme-court/index.html">landmark decision</a> to allow states to legalize sports wagering. Tennessee, where I am studying clinical psychology, took advantage of this ruling, and in late 2020, the state legalized <a href="https://www.tennessean.com/in-depth/money/2020/10/31/tennessee-sports-betting-online-fanduel-draftkings-betmgm-action-247/6056604002/">online and mobile sports betting</a>.</p>
<p>With most <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/sportsbook-5217715">sportsbooks</a> offering betting apps, my clients are finding it more difficult to quit gambling than ever before. Unlike other forms of gambling, such as playing roulette or slots at a casino, these apps are on their phones and in their pockets, accompanying them wherever they go.</p>
<p>This availability makes it that much harder to resist any urges that might arise – and presents unique challenges for helping clients reduce their gambling.</p>
<h2>A new type of client emerges</h2>
<p>When I first started treating people for gambling disorder in 2019, my clients were usually older and gambled in casinos, with slot machines and card games among their favorite forms of gambling. They also tended to be poorer and often talked about how they began gambling to make some side money, viewing it as a second job. Many of them had retired and would say things like, “Going to the casino gets me out of the house” or “The casino is like my ‘Cheers’” – a nod to the popular watering hole in the eponymous sitcom. </p>
<p>That all changed when sports betting was legalized in Tennessee in November 2020.</p>
<p>Since then, I’ve noticed that my average client has started to look different. I’m now providing therapy to younger men, mostly in their 20s, who are seeking treatment for problems with sports betting. These clients tend to earn more money and be wealthier than my previous clients – a pattern that sports betting <a href="https://theconversation.com/access-to-sports-betting-in-the-us-has-exploded-since-2018-and-were-just-starting-to-learn-about-the-effects-192055">researchers have observed</a>.</p>
<p>Several of them reported being avid sports fans or having a competitive streak. And they thought they could “beat the system” due to their extensive sports knowledge.</p>
<p>Many of them started betting on sports after hearing promotions for various betting companies. Even if you’re a casual sports fan with no interest in betting, you can’t miss these ads, which regularly air during televised sporting events. For example, some ads for FanDuel, one of the more popular sports betting apps, highlight a “No Sweat First Bet,” with <a href="https://www.actionnetwork.com/education/what-does-each-sportsbook-bonus-mean">new users eligible for a risk-free bet of up to $1,000</a>.</p>
<p>There’s also a social element to sports betting. One client talked about betting on sports as a way to bond with relatives who also gambled. Similarly, a few college students I have treated told me that they started betting because they wanted to fit in with their fraternity brothers.</p>
<h2>The apps don’t make it easy to set limits</h2>
<p>But once gambling issues begin, it can be hard for these clients to stop. Most of them started by placing smaller bets on a single outcome. Over time, they start to bet more to recoup their losses. Before they knew it, their bets had increased, with many not realizing how this change even happened.</p>
<p>Betting apps are available on any smartphone and are connected to clients’ bank accounts, making it quick and easy to deposit more funds. This often leads clients to lose track of how much money they have lost. As one client told me, “It’s easier to spend money on these apps because you never really see it. The transactions are all done electronically.”</p>
<p>These apps do not make it easy for those with gambling problems to sign up for cool-off periods or self-exclusion. <a href="https://casino.draftkings.com/responsible-gaming-on-draftkings?wpsrc=Organic%20Search&wpaffn=Google&wpkw=https%3A%2F%2Fcasino.draftkings.com%2Fresponsible-gaming-on-draftkings&wpcn=responsible-gaming-on-draftkings">Cool-off periods</a> allow the user to set a time frame – from a few hours to several months – where they will be unable to log into their betting account. <a href="https://www.responsiblegambling.org/for-the-public/problem-gambling-help/self-exclusion/">Self-exclusion</a> allows the user to ban themselves from the app for longer periods of time. Specific exclusion lengths differ by state. <a href="https://www.playtenn.com/tennessee-sportsbook-self-exclusion/#:%7E:text=You%20can%20choose%20to%20exclude,consider%20your%20length%20of%20exclusion.">In Tennessee</a>, there are one-year, five-year and lifetime ban options. </p>
<p>While many apps have these features, my clients often have to search online for this information, and even when they do find it, they can’t figure out how to put these guardrails in place. If they wish to set a cool-off period or ban themselves from all sports betting apps, they must do so from each app, one at a time, which can be tedious.</p>
<p><iframe id="D0Ren" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D0Ren/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>It’s impossible to avoid sports and smartphones</h2>
<p>Sports betting presents unique challenges <a href="https://thegamblingclinic.com/">for treating gambling problems</a>. </p>
<p>In addiction treatment, therapists, like me, often encourage clients to fill their time with activities that aren’t connected to gambling or to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.04.006">avoid situations where they may be likely to gamble</a>. But when gambling is available at the touch of a button, it becomes harder to determine what situations may lead to gambling, which makes it harder to figure out what to avoid.</p>
<p>Before the apps, clients had to make plans for how and when to gamble. Now, all they have to do is pick up their phone and open an app. It is also incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to ask a client to stop using their smartphone or stop watching sports.</p>
<p>This is why I often tailor treatment to each client’s needs and circumstances. Some may wish to quit altogether, while others may simply want to cut back on their gambling. This has forced me to consider other possible alternatives, such as showing them how to set screen time limits for sportsbook apps or talking about strategies to watch less sports.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9471-4">Most people</a> who bet on sports don’t develop gambling problems. But with so few regulations in place – advertising or otherwise – those who are the most at risk are especially vulnerable to developing problems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tori Horn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the past, typical clients tended to be retirees living on fixed incomes who played slots and card games.Tori Horn, PhD Student in Clinical Psychology, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1942212022-12-26T08:01:47Z2022-12-26T08:01:47ZBetting on female jockeys can bring greater rewards – but it’s not all good news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496150/original/file-20221118-9310-wkrws0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C37%2C5003%2C3407&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rachael Blackmore is among the top jockeys in the UK</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.alamy.com/file-photo-dated-18-03-2022-of-jockey-rachael-blackmore-celebrating-on-a-plus-tard-after-winning-the-boodles-cheltenham-gold-cup-chase-a-plus-tard-is-set-to-face-four-rivals-as-he-attempts-to-win-back-to-back-renewals-of-the-betfair-chase-at-haydock-on-saturday-issue-date-thursday-november-17-2022-image491321387.html?imageid=12598E33-30FD-47BF-B414-E44A35C45FB9&p=0&pn=1&searchId=fe4817a7cac83b5e32001a9577368d86&searchtype=0">PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The bookmaker (nearly) always wins, as the adage goes. But if you want to tip the balance in your favour, look to female riders. </p>
<p>Gamblers’ biases have created a situation where punters can make greater returns by backing female jump jockeys. In our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.08.012">recently published research</a> that was funded by the <a href="https://www.racingfoundation.co.uk">Racing Foundation</a>, my colleagues and I discovered that when male and female jockeys have an equal chance of winning, the odds on horses ridden by women are longer (more profitable) overall.</p>
<p>But while these findings may be a revelation to punters, there is a darker side to our work. </p>
<p>We analysed British horse racing data from 664,536 runners (horses and riders) in National Hunt races across a 20-year period, from January 2001 to January 2021. National hunt races require horses to jump fences and ditches. The races were mixed – women didn’t compete in separate races.</p>
<p>Using starting prices, the odds at the start of a race, we calculated each horse’s probability of winning. We also gauged the expected finish position of each horse by ranking the odds. Then we compared our predictions with the race results.</p>
<p>To our surprise, the results for horses with female jockeys were significantly better than their odds predicted. Indeed, our model estimates that across the study period in a 20-horse race, females would on average finish one place higher than their odds implied. </p>
<p>Starting prices are based on the volume of bets placed. They represent the market’s opinion of each runner’s chance of winning. We found that while the odds predicted race outcomes well, the betting public favour male riders. With less support for female jockeys, their odds are longer than is realistic. But this was not our only surprising discovery.</p>
<h2>Against the odds</h2>
<p>We also found that the discrepancy between male and female odds is growing. The tendency for the British betting public to underestimate female jockeys has increased over the last decade. </p>
<p>Bettors seem to allow sexist beliefs to harm their winnings – but their attitudes may actually be based on a misinterpretation of the facts. Women accounted for less than 3% of rides in our study period, so punters may find it more difficult to assess female jockeys’ performance than males’.</p>
<p>However, the percentage of female-ridden horses has nearly trebled over the last decade, from 2.4% to 6.5%. There is now more information available about how female riders perform – yet bettors are increasingly underestimating women. </p>
<p>It may be that bettors <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175">focus on evidence that supports their opinions</a>. <a href="https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/horse-racing-analysis-why-are-there-so-many-small-fields-in-british-jumps-racing/196695">Fewer participants</a> in each race has driven an increased win rate among both male and female jockeys. While the male win rate increased by 1.8 percentage points, female jockeys’ win rate rose by 4.7 percentage points across the study period. Bettors seem to be ignoring this information. Or perhaps they are adapting their beliefs at a slower pace than women’s performance is improving. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-186530">Cognitive biases and brain biology help explain why facts don’t change minds</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496154/original/file-20221118-22-d2hnid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rachael Blackmore winning the Unibet Champion Hurdle Challenge Trophy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.alamy.com/honeysuckle-ridden-by-rachael-blackmore-right-on-their-way-to-winning-the-unibet-champion-hurdle-challenge-trophy-during-day-one-of-the-cheltenham-festival-at-cheltenham-racecourse-picture-date-tuesday-march-15-2022-image464645641.html?imageid=CAEF6E61-2E61-49F0-A323-5BE351A576E1&p=309339&pn=undefined&searchId=1cb795ac63986b37bc1cfee4f0d85ba7&searchtype=0">PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is often more comfortable to tell yourself that an unexpected event is an exception, as it helps you avoid <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1995-05331-001">cognitive dissonance</a>. For example, bettors may acknowledge <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/racing/grand-national-2021-rachael-blackmore-b1829003.html">Rachael Blackmore</a>, the first female winner of the Grand National, is a talented jockey and make an exception for her, but still avoid betting on other female jockeys. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-feel-bad-when-our-beliefs-dont-match-our-actions-blame-cognitive-dissonance-193444">Why do we feel bad when our beliefs don't match our actions? Blame 'cognitive dissonance'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found some evidence that this is what’s happening. When we excluded the top female riders from our analysis, underestimation of female jockeys increased. Regardless of whether the bias is conscious or unconscious, the public underestimates female jockeys.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Our analysis raises questions about whether the racing industry itself is biased. The low number of female jump jockeys suggests women <a href="https://www.womeninracing.co.uk/media/filer_public/84/89/84898a2a-7ea7-4fe9-b1dd-0e7d3d6cfa64/oxford_brookes_womens_representation_and_diversity_in_the.pdf">may face barriers</a> to entering this career. It is curious there are not more professional female jockeys when the <a href="https://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/female-jockeys-good-males-suggests-thoroughbred-horseracing-industries-mba-study/">majority of racing’s trainee stable-staff are female</a> and women make up roughly half of all point-to-point riders (an amateur form of National Hunt racing). Contrary to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/racing/2021/04/10/rachael-blackmores-historic-triumph-has-shattered-racings-glass/">media reports that female jockeys are treated equal to males</a>, our analysis suggests gender bias persists in British horse racing. </p>
<p>Measuring the behaviour of bettors offers a window into people’s attitudes towards women more generally. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/28/britain-gender-equality-war-complacency-women-pandemic">assumption in Britain</a> is that equality for women in general is improving, but our study shows this is not true in racing. And if the public chooses to avoid backing female jockeys even though they could achieve better returns, how much sex discrimination still exists in our society?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa Cashmore receives funding from The Racing Foundation. </span></em></p>Horse racing can be at thrill for punters and jockeys alike. But sex discrimination could be skewing the odds.Vanessa Cashmore, PhD student, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1913172022-09-28T12:32:14Z2022-09-28T12:32:14ZNobel Prizes, election outcomes and sports championships – prediction markets try to foresee the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486954/original/file-20220928-12-t78jok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C122%2C4184%2C3075&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who will be next to cross this stage and accept a Nobel Prize?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/general-view-of-the-stage-during-the-nobel-prize-awards-news-photo/500796996">Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images News via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who will win Nobel Prizes in 2022? Wikipedia posits a handful of contenders for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine">Physiology or Medicine</a>, about 20 different possible winners for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nobel_Peace_Prize">Peace Prize</a> and several dozen potential winners of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nobel_Prize_in_Literature">Literature Prize</a>. But since the Swedish Academy never announces nominees in advance, there are few insights indicating who will win, or even if the eventual winner is on a given list.</p>
<p>Are there ways to predict the future winners?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0690498">Delphi approach</a>, named after the oracle in ancient Greece, gathers multiple rounds of opinions from a group of experts <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.001">to generate a prediction</a>. Gambling firms provide betting odds on the likelihood that specific competitors will win. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.043">Crowdsourced competitions</a>, such as the Yahoo Soccer World Cup “Pick-Em,” have participants predict individual contest winners and then aggregate the results.</p>
<p>Another approach is a prediction market that provides insight into what people expect will happen in the future by creating a stock market-like environment to capture the “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/175380/the-wisdom-of-crowds-by-james-surowiecki/">wisdom of the crowd</a>.” <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.8.1049">Groups and crowds often are collectively smarter</a> than individuals when many independent opinions are combined. </p>
<p>As an accounting and information systems professor at the University of Southern California, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DVk7EKAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I investigate issues related to the crowd</a> both in my research and in my teaching. Here’s how prediction markets harness what the crowd thinks to forecast the future.</p>
<h2>The wisdom of the market</h2>
<p>In prediction markets, participants buy and sell stocks. Each stock’s price is tied to a different event happening in the future. Information about the future is captured in the stock prices. </p>
<p>For instance, in a prediction market focused on the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe Greta Thunberg is trading at $0.10 while Pope Francis is trading at $0.15, and the stocks for the entire group of candidates add up to sum to $1. The prices reflect the traders’ aggregated beliefs about the probability of their winning – a higher price means a higher perceived likelihood of winning.</p>
<p><iframe id="S3IU3" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/S3IU3/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Prediction markets have various ways of setting stock prices. The Iowa Electronic Markets took following approach during the 2020 U.S. presidential election:</p>
<ul>
<li>Stock DEM2020 pays off $1 if the Democratic candidate wins, and $0 otherwise,</li>
<li>Stock REP2020 pays off $1 if the Republican candidate wins, and $0 otherwise.</li>
</ul>
<p>The stock prices capture the probabilities of each candidate winning, in two mutually exclusive events. If the price of DEM2020 is $0.52, then that is treated as the probability of that event occurring – a 52% chance. If DEM2020 is $0.52, then REP2020 is $0.48.</p>
<p>Prediction markets may use real money, or they can use play money. Google’s market used what it called “Goobles,” while the Hollywood Stock Exchange uses Hollywood Dollars. The Iowa Electronic Markets and PredictIt, both sponsored by universities, use real money. Researchers have found that there are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10196780500491303">no differences in the performance of markets</a> using real money versus those using play money.</p>
<p>Although using play money makes it possible for many people to participate, one potential challenge for prediction markets that don’t use real money is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.07.004">gaining and maintaining interested participants</a>. Despite using different devices to keep up engagement, such as leader boards indicating who has accumulated the biggest portfolio, there is literally no money on the table to keep participants interested in the market.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="German players hold 2014 World Cup trophy aloft" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486959/original/file-20220928-12981-49d7y1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Market participants who know more about the game might better predict winners.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/SoccerFIFAWorldCupFormat/f538c07d27f542cfaacbada7906cdacf/photo?Query=Germany%20World%20Cup%202014&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=&totalCount=7375&currentItemNo=40">AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Participants bring their knowledge to the market</h2>
<p>Prediction markets and crowdsourcing do not function in a vacuum. </p>
<p>Researchers have found that information about events finds its way into the prediction processes from various sources. For example, when I <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.043">analyzed the relationship between the betting odds</a> and the Yahoo Pick-Em crowd’s guesses for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, I found that there was no statistical difference between the proportion of correct guesses in each. My conclusion is that either the crowd’s guesses incorporated the betting odds information or the crowd’s guesses added up to the same result by some other means.</p>
<p>Generally, prediction markets use play money or are run by non-profit universities to study markets, elections and human decision making. Although gambling houses can take bets for many activities, <a href="https://www.legalsportsreport.com/74880/end-of-predictit-election-betting-around-the-corner/">external prediction markets are more restricted</a> in the activities they can be used to investigate, and are typically limited to elections. However, internal prediction markets – run within a corporation, for instance – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4_26">can explore almost any topic of interest</a>.</p>
<p>Typically, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/S1477-4070(2011)0000008014">prediction markets function better with informed participants</a>. Although using so-called inside information is illegal in some markets, including the New York Stock Exchange, there generally are no such limitations in prediction markets, or other crowdsourcing approaches. If those with inside information were to participate in a prediction market, it would likely lead to more accurate stock prices, as insiders make trades informed by their knowledge. However, if others <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.02.003">find out that a participant has inside information</a>, then they may very well try to gain access to that info, follow the insider’s actions or even decide to leave the unfair market.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330041371321">accuracy of prediction markets</a> depends on many factors, including who is in the market, what their biases are and how heterogeneous the participants are. Accuracy can also depend on how many people are in the market – more is generally better – and the extent to which they are informed about the events of interest.</p>
<p>Researchers have found that prediction markets have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.03.007">outperformed polls in presidential elections</a> roughly 75% of the time. But accurate results are not guaranteed. For example, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-11-15/prediction-markets-didn-t-call-trump-s-win-either">prediction markets did not correctly predict</a> that Donald Trump would win the U.S. presidency in 2016.</p>
<h2>Who will be in Stockholm for the ceremony?</h2>
<p>In 2011, Harvard University economics faculty had a real-money prediction market site, referred to as “the world’s most accurate prediction market.” The site had been used for predicting the Nobel Prize in Economics, but <a href="https://freakonomics.com/2011/10/harvard-shuts-down-its-nobel-prize-pool/">Harvard advised the site to shut down</a>.</p>
<p>I couldn’t find any current public prediction markets active for the 2022 Nobel Prizes.</p>
<p>For the moment, perhaps the closest to participating in a Nobel prediction market would be to place a bet at one of the gambling houses that <a href="https://www.gamblingsites.com/entertainment-betting/nobel-prize/">takes bets on the Nobel Prizes</a>. Or find a Nobel Prize Pick-Em site, propose such an event to an existing prediction market or build your own prediction market using <a href="https://www.cipher-sys.com/market-research-services">some of the available software</a>.</p>
<p>If you know of one, let me know, I want to play.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191317/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel O'Leary does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Buying and selling stocks – with real or play money – is a way to harness the wisdom of the crowd about questions like who is going to win a competition.Daniel O'Leary, Professor of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1889432022-09-15T17:11:23Z2022-09-15T17:11:23ZThe horseracing industry is ignoring what science says about whipping<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482779/original/file-20220905-2314-596d1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C49%2C4670%2C2791&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is it time to rethink whipping in horse races?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/race-horse-jockeys-on-home-straight-1718700883">Lukas Gojda/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) released its recent <a href="https://media.britishhorseracing.com/bha/whip/Whip_consultation_report.pdf">whip consultation report</a>, it claimed to have consulted the science. But it insists whipping when done “correctly” shouldn’t hurt horses and fails to substantively recommend that the racing industry changes its approach to the way whips are used. </p>
<p>The BHA recognises two uses of the whip. For encouragement, to activate the horse or trigger a gear change in speed. And for safety of the horse and rider such as when jumping an obstacle. It recommends that whipping “for safety and encouragement” should continue. Industry leaders and jockeys say that whip use is essential to keep horses and jockeys safe.</p>
<p>The BHA report says using a whip as a form of “encouragement” acts “as an aid to activate the horse, which motivates a horse to give of its best and realise its potential in a race”. This gives the impression that striking horses with a partially padded rod is in their interest, like making your children eat their vegetables. But the scientific research into how horses experience whipping reveals a different story. </p>
<p>Horses evolved to run away from painful pressure on their hindquarters, given the most likely natural cause of such stimulation is contact from a predator. Whips evoke this evolutionary response to deter horses from slowing down in the closing stages of a race. But, in contrast to contact from a pursuing predator, whip strikes from a jockey are totally inescapable and so may give horses a sense of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18569222/">learned helplessness</a>.</p>
<p>A 2020 <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/11/2094">study</a> showed that horses’ skin is just as sensitive as humans’ by comparing skin samples under the microscope and exploring any differences in their skin structure and nerve supply. It found the outer layer of horses’ skin is no thicker (or more protective) than in humans. So if whip strikes cause pain to humans, they are likely to hurt horses. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pdp5LDWxUkE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>When it comes to changing a horse’s behaviour, whips are used in racing as a form of punishment (for its failure to perform), not encouragement (to realise its potential).</p>
<h2>What the report says</h2>
<p>The report recommends one change to the way whips are used: to restrict their use for “encouragement” to the backhand position only. In racing, whips are held like a ski pole (backhand) or like a tennis racquet (forehand). The BHA’s rationale for moving to backhand-only strikes is that “the backhand discourages a wide arm action, which is not only neater and more stylish it also reduces the likelihood that the whip will be used with excessive force and/or from above shoulder height”. The report adds that “it is more difficult, though of course not impossible, to strike a horse with excessive force from the backhand position”. </p>
<p>Yet a 2013 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259162264_A_note_on_the_force_of_whip_impacts_delivered_by_jockeys_using_forehand_and_backhand_strikes">study</a>, not listed in the BHA report, showed that when jockeys whipped with their dominant hand, they struck with more force in the backhand than the forehand position. Stylish or not, promoting backhand strikes is bad for horses if forehand strikes are milder.</p>
<p>The report also recommended the BHA, on behalf of the racing industry, should commission and support objective research into the effects of the whip, using scientific advances to inform its policy. Conspicuously, it failed to specify what more science was needed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Horses race down a grass track" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482068/original/file-20220831-24-pzawkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The BHA says whipping is used as a form of encouragement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/race-horses-jockeys-on-home-straight-1033555036">Lukas Gojda/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When the BHA <a href="https://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/WhipReview.pdf">reviewed whipping in 2011</a>, it also concluded that whipping stimulates a horse and doesn’t cause pain. This time around, the report confined itself to simply providing a list of papers published since 2011 about whipping, without discussing any of them. </p>
<p>The 2022 report reveals that this year some panel members felt there was enough evidence to remove the use of whips for “encouragement” now. So why the call for “more science”? </p>
<h2>What about safety?</h2>
<p>The report says “in general, a focused, appropriately activated horse will tend to race more safely”, but it does not elaborate further on how whipping keeps a horse and jockey safe. </p>
<p>This view runs counter to a 2020 <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/11/1985">study</a> (listed, but not discussed, in the report) which compared whipping-free races for apprentices (in which whips are held but not used) with races in which the actual use of the whip is allowed. </p>
<p>Races of both types were meticulously matched for racecourse, distance, number of horses starting each race, and “the going” (turf conditions on the day). A detailed analysis of stewards’ post-race reports revealed no difference between the two race types in movement of horses across the track and interference with other horses. There was no evidence that whipping improved safety. </p>
<h2>Do whips improve performance?</h2>
<p>The received wisdom is that whipping a horse makes it more likely to win. However, a landmark <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015622">study</a> published in 2011 showed increased whipping does not significantly affect a horse’s speed at the finishing line. This reflects the reality that, as they finish a race, most horses are losing speed because they are fatigued. The comparison study mentioned above also found no difference in finishing times between whipping-free and conventional races.</p>
<p>While the ethics of promoting gambling is a different debate entirely, whip-free races in Norway and the UK still allow people to bet. It may even be more attractive to sponsors seeking assurance their brand is associated only with ethical activities.</p>
<h2>What others think</h2>
<p>A spokesperson for the BHA told The Conversation: “The BHA’s whip review was the most detailed and rigorous of its type carried out by a racing body. It included a detailed public consultation, and recommendations were made by a steering group which contained expertise from across the racing and equine industry, alongside neutral and external participants including from the equine welfare sector and government. </p>
<p>"It included detailed consideration of public sentiment and the scientific landscape. It should be noted that the whip can only be used in racing for safety, correction, or to activate or encourage a horse, never to coerce. As a result of the whip review British racing will now have amongst the most strict and innovative whip rules in world racing.”</p>
<p>All horse riding, including so-called natural horsemanship, involves some form of negative reinforcement. This involves applying pressure until the horse responds the way you want it to. A <a href="https://www.equitationscience.com/posstat-aversive-stimuli">position statement</a> from the International Society for Equitation Science says trainers should use <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787810000614">minimal force</a> and avoid punishing horses or making them feel scared. They oppose jockeys whipping horses to improve their position in a race.</p>
<p>Animal ethicists say people should apply the <a href="https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol2/iss16/1/">precautionary principle</a> and “err on the side of caution” when animals are made to participate in human activities. But the BHA rejected the precautionary principle because of the “proportionality of the principle in relation to this issue”. </p>
<p>In contrast, the website of the charity <a href="https://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/what-we-do/sport-and-leisure-horses/review-of-the-use-of-the-whip-in-racing">World Horse Welfare</a> states: “We need to assume that if a procedure causes pain in humans and leads to a response in horses, then it causes that response by causing pain.” It concludes that whipping for encouragement should be banned. Photographic evidence that the padded whip can leave <a href="https://horsesandpeople.com.au/whip-welts-on-melbourne-cup-winner/">welts</a> on horses underscores this point. </p>
<p>An Animal Aid-funded <a href="https://www.animalaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YGwhippoll2018PR.pdf">2018 YouGov study</a> found that 68% of adult respondents in the UK either oppose (30%) or strongly oppose (38%) the use of the whip in racing. When excluding those who did not express an opinion on the issue, the number of respondents who oppose or strongly oppose the use of the whip in racing rose to 83%.</p>
<h2>The turning tide</h2>
<p>Groups that the BHA once considered allies are now openly criticising its stance on whipping. In part as a result of the 2022 consultation, the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.rspca.org.uk%252F-%252Fnews-fury-over-whipping-decision%26amp%3Bdata%3D05%257C01%257Cpmcgree2%2540myune.mail.onmicrosoft.com%257C1a88665cff5941c91a1408da745a3b37%257C3e104c4f8ef24d1483d8bd7d3b46b8db%257C0%257C0%257C637950228159763041%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DIbT6MgFRWXvTO1NXmLPh6qxTSf7l95ny1XKf29lAplU%253D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0&ust=1660829820000000&usg=AOvVaw1kpMpzNubINiRjUzCr1AS9&hl=en&source=gmail">RSPCA</a> (England and Wales) and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.worldhorsewelfare.org%252Fnews%252Fthe-british-horseracing-authoritys-review-of-the-use-of-the-whip-in-horse-racing-our-response%26amp%3Bdata%3D05%257C01%257Cpmcgree2%2540myune.mail.onmicrosoft.com%257C1a88665cff5941c91a1408da745a3b37%257C3e104c4f8ef24d1483d8bd7d3b46b8db%257C0%257C0%257C637950228159763041%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DHnXj%252Bemwggc2Ocby2K9TRxrRIkN01vE1ZwABdYUceII%253D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0&ust=1660829820000000&usg=AOvVaw2iRWVvdfA80k93BizFZtdb&hl=en&source=gmail">World Horse Welfare</a> have withdrawn support on whipping horses for encouragement.</p>
<p>It is easy to see why whipping in horseracing has become a touchstone issue, disliked by the <a href="https://www.animalaid.org.uk/poll-reveals-strong-public-opposition-use-whip-racing/">majority of the public</a> and a central threat to racing and other equestrian sports’ <a href="https://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/what-we-do/sport-and-leisure-horses/what-is-a-social-licence-to-operate">social license to operate</a>. When the justification for whipping tired horses comes down to semantics, how much longer will society tolerate this violent form of “encouragement”? </p>
<p><em>This article was changed on September 23 2022 from “But it insists whipping doesn’t hurt horses” to “But it insists whipping when done "correctly” shouldn’t hurt horses and fails to substantively recommend that the racing industry changes its approach".</em></p>
<p><em>This article was changed on September 28 to “But it insists whipping when done "correctly” doesn’t hurt horses and fails to substantively recommend that the racing industry changes its approach.“</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188943/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Paul McGreevy is an Honorary Fellow of the International Society for Equitation Science and a life member of the RSPCA NSW. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research into the welfare of racing Thoroughbreds. He occasionally conducts research funded by the RSPCA Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bidda Jones is employed by the Australian Alliance for Animals. She is a member of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Welfare Working Group which provides independent advice to the Australian Thoroughbred breeding industry.</span></em></p>Does whipping hurt horses and why do jockeys do it? Research shows the industry’s view that whipping is important for safety and performance is misguided.Paul McGreevy, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Welfare, University of New EnglandBidda Jones, Honorary Associate, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1639292021-07-22T14:14:21Z2021-07-22T14:14:21ZGame on! The opportunities and risks of single-game sports betting in Canada<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411981/original/file-20210719-17-1cjy5ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C0%2C7892%2C5261&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Single-event sports betting was recently <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-single-game-sports-betting-about-to-become-legal-after-senate-passes/">approved by the Senate of Canada via Bill C-218</a>, which is <a href="https://frontofficesports.com/operators-anticipate-sports-betting-gold-rush-in-canada/">big news for the Canadian sport industry</a>.</p>
<p>The passage of this bill, almost 10 years in the making, will dramatically change the sports landscape in this country given <a href="https://www.thestar.com/sports/2021/04/08/gaming-operators-here-want-share-of-14-billion-spent-by-canadians-annually-on-offshore-betting-websites-illegal-gambling-operations.html">that annual betting by Canadians is already estimated to surpass US$10 billion</a> a year through offshore betting websites and illegal gambling operations.</p>
<p>The influence of this bill — and related activities that will include sport marketing and media partnerships and related activation — will be enormous for an industry that has been severely and negatively impacted by COVID-19.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-have-a-serious-conversation-about-the-future-of-canadian-football-162906">It’s time to have a serious conversation about the future of Canadian football</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many industry insiders representing professional sport teams and leagues are already planning for what they describe as being one of, if not the most, <a href="https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/tmt/library/sports-outlook-north-america.html">transformational sport disruptions in the modern-day industry</a>. Experts note that the potential for this market is large, given it <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/sports-betting-firm-in-canada-braces-for-fanduel-after-111-rise">could be a US$4 billion revenue opportunity</a>.</p>
<p>A plethora of sport betting operators will now enter the Canadian market, including DraftKings, FanDuel and PointsBet. That will contribute significantly to the economy through a variety of means, including new revenue via individual consumer betting as well as realized revenue through sport marketing partnerships with professional teams and leagues. </p>
<p>These new revenue streams are going to be difficult to ignore, <a href="https://www.casino.org/news/canada-single-game-sports-betting-seen-lifting-score-media-others/">but are fraught with big and unknown impacts</a>.</p>
<h2>The Canadian sport industry:</h2>
<p>Today, the global sport industry is estimated to be valued at <a href="https://www.kearney.com/communications-media-technology/article?/a/the-sports-market">approximately US$529 billion</a>. It has been well acknowledged <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-business-of-sports-resumes-amid-covid-19-but-%20at-what-cost-142793">that it has been severely impacted by COVID-19</a>, especially when it comes to loss of fan-related revenue, including venue attendance and ticketing. </p>
<p>In Canada, for example, <a href="https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/30880914/toronto-raptors-continue-playing-home-games-tampa-rest-season">the Raptors had to play in Florida due to international border restrictions due to COVID-19</a> and the costs have been detrimental. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-business-of-sports-resumes-amid-covid-19-but-at-what-cost-142793">The business of sports resumes amid COVID-19, but at what cost?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the United States and Canada, the sport industry is <a href="https://www.uwi.edu/uop/sites/uop/files/Value%20and%20benefits%20of%20the%20Sport%20Industry.pdf">estimated to be valued at approximately US$80 billion</a>, with Canada making up a tenth of this market size. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Scotiabank Arena with a billboard-sized image of the Toronto Raptors in front" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411985/original/file-20210719-23-8wd2pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Toronto Raptors usually play at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto but had to play in Florida this past season because of COVID-19.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Single-game betting offers a new <a href="https://sportshandle.com/canada/">means of engaging</a> the fan-sport property entertainment experience, which is why so many sport teams, media partners and <a href="https://www.thestar.com/sports/2021/06/22/finally-single-event-sports-betting-is-coming-to-canada-after-bill-c-218-clears-final-hurdle.html">related sport sponsors are actively going “all in”</a> with the opportunity for involvement around this highly engaged consumer segment. </p>
<p>This new market can be compared to Big Tobacco sponsorship money which was <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/artists-protest-loss-of-funding-from-tobacco-companies">formally extinguished through previous federal legislation</a>. It held a new and rather unwieldy power as one of most influential sport funding partners in Canada during the 1970s and 1980s.</p>
<p>And despite the single-betting bill taking 10 years to pass, stakeholders and the government are still trying to regulate the the effects of the new sport betting industry. </p>
<p>It means <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/more/article/canadas-new-betting-law-generate-taxes-protect-consumers/">sorting out what will be best practice strategies</a> that can draw comparisons to Wild West when unmoderated. </p>
<h2>Social impacts</h2>
<p>So what are the impacts of single-game betting to the industry and society, and how will it be regulated? </p>
<p>The government recently announced they are <a href="https://sportshandle.com/canada-provincial-rollout-71321/">implementing a watchdog type agency and policy to monitor the industry</a> for a number of concerns which, in the bill’s current form, include amendments <a href="https://www.tsn.ca/canada-gambling-single-game-sports-betting-1.1658640">to prohibit match-fixing</a> and changes to the Criminal Code <a href="https://sportshandle.com/historic-canada-bill-adopted/">to allow First Nations lottery considerations</a>. </p>
<p>What has not been considered, however, is how responsible betting will be moderated, managed and communicated. To date, there is no evidence of a national, independent or arms-length conversation on responsible betting. We know that related addictions could rise, especially with recent Canadian evidence showing that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10025-2">sport fans and bettors seem to be at a higher risk of problem gambling than non-sport fans</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three sports fans sit at a sports bar with beer, watching the game and looking at their cellphones" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411980/original/file-20210719-17-1lb1w8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Single-game sport betting is now legal in Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is the appropriate role and place of key stakeholders in this space, new and current, and how will this new category be defined as a sport marketing vehicle? The <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/more/article/canadas-new-betting-law-generate-taxes-protect-consumers/">exchange of related sports data for betting purposes remains unclear</a>. </p>
<p>One concern is the lack of a comparable mechanism to the U.S. <a href="https://www.ncpgambling.org/">National Council on Problem Gambling</a> — of which theScore, a leading Canadian player in the global sport betting scene, is a member. Another concern is the lack of diversity in the sports betting industry. The industry is already loaded with traditional male profiles — a comprehensive diversity strategy could attract young, bright talent. </p>
<h2>What does it mean for Canadian sport?</h2>
<p>The jury is very much still out on the impact of the now legal, single-game sport betting industry in our country. </p>
<p>But this change will be monumental in size and value, with the potential to significantly impact the sport industry in a way we haven’t seen in decades. </p>
<p>The industry needs to take immediate steps to ensure it is open, transparent and considerate of responsible betting. It must also lead with a diverse culture, and have strong considerations for an authentic and sustained footprint in an industry desperately posed to return to sport after COVID-19.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163929/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A plethora of sport betting operators will now enter the Canadian market and contribute to the economy through consumer betting and marketing partnerships. But what are the risks?Cheri L. Bradish, Professor of Sport Business, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityDavid J Finch, Professor and Associate Director, Institute for Community Prosperity, Mount Royal UniversityDavid Legg, Professor, Dept of Health and Physical Education, Mount Royal UniversityMichael L. Naraine, Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1595092021-04-28T16:02:19Z2021-04-28T16:02:19ZGambling: a sure bet? The global challenges facing young people<p>The global growth of gambling has led to tensions about what role it can and should play in our societies. In Kenya, the rise of online sports betting highlights broader social issues – with <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2d2h">disillusioned youth</a> using it as a way to fund themselves through university and through life. In <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2d2j">Albania</a>, the government is grappling with a social and health crisis after years of rapid gambling expansion and in the UK, current gambling legislation is under review, with particular focus on the impact on <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-review-to-ensure-gambling-laws-are-fit-for-digital-age">young people</a>.</p>
<p>As the pandemic escalates global economic crises and behaviours shift further online, the expansion of gambling poses additional risks, especially to young people who face an increasingly uncertain future.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2d2h">new documentary series</a> for the BBC World Service discusses, opportunities for gambling are rapidly growing around the world. Some governments promote it to fill gaps in government budgets (lotteries are a prime example). Others usher in new, relaxed gambling rules without accounting for potential fallout. But a closer look at those caught up in the cycle of gambling shows that the effects can be devastating.</p>
<p>Jonah* is a 21-year-old student living in Kenya that I interviewed for the BBC’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2d2h">Gambling: A Sure Bet</a>. He describes himself as a “gambling addict”. Like so many of his friends, he bets on European football matches, aiming to make enough money to fund his way through college. And he does. Last year, he won enough money to fund his fees for a semester. But he’s also anxious about this, and ashamed of his behaviour – especially stealing from his parents to fund his betting (gambling addiction is a cycle and people continue to feed their betting habits despite winning), worrying about what would happen if they found out about it.</p>
<h2>The growth of gambling</h2>
<p>Betting in Kenya has become a way of life for so many young people like Jonah. According to him and his friends, there are so few opportunities for meaningful employment for young people in Kenya that gambling seems like a logical way to make money. Estimates suggest that <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00023/full">76%</a> of young people in Kenya gamble, despite a growing awareness of its drawbacks. One of the reasons being that in Kenya, as across Africa more broadly, there is little regulation which offers protection to people from gambling harms. </p>
<p>However, some people and organisations are agitating for change. Just four weeks ago, <a href="https://gamban.co.ke/">Gamban</a>, a social enterprise which provides gambling-blocking software, rolled out its platform in Kenya – becoming the first tool available in the country to protect gamblers. Unfortunately, moves like these may be too little too late for a cohort of youth who now see gambling as part of their pathway out of poverty.</p>
<p>In Albania, one of Europe’s poorest nations, the rapid expansion of gambling was symptomatic of the nation’s move from socialist republic to democracy and capitalism in the early 1990s. Accompanying this shift, gambling was legalised in 1992. Albanians, especially young Albanian men, took to this with gusto. More than 4,000 betting shops sprung up across Albania, later accompanied by online gambling. </p>
<p>But this was not without consequences. When research from the Albanian <a href="http://www.doktoratura.unitir.edu.al/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Tema-e-plote-per-cd.pdf">University of Tirana</a> showed the ubiquity of gambling among children aged ten to 15 years of age and its association with attempted suicide, domestic violence and family breakdown, the government responded, passing a law in 2018 that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-albania-gambling-ban-idUSKCN1MZ2GR">banned most forms of gambling</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the impact of the ban is unknown, especially on young people. Investigation shows that a vibrant, underground network of gambling provision has been set up around Albania, leading <a href="https://exit.al/en/2018/12/29/after-the-gambling-ban-what-about-the-gambling-addicts/">some to argue</a> that prohibition is not the answer. But in the case of young people, it may be worth considering the long game. For the next generation of children growing up when gambling is no longer state sanctioned, heavily advertised nor a visible part of community cultures, it may be that these actions help break the Albanian appetite for gambling.</p>
<p>The rising popularity of online sports betting among young people in Britain is notable too. Gambling cultures have changed rapidly in the past few decades and are promoted as normal leisure activities. Some of these include increasingly complex betting infrastructures between sports teams, gambling providers and media broadcasters. In fact, sport seems to have been entirely reframed through the lens of gambling in recent years, with far-reaching impact. </p>
<p>Gambling products have become increasingly visible, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14660970.2020.1860028?journalCode=fsas20">especially to children</a>, through sponsorships, marketing, in-stadium advertising – as well as through regular advertising during televised sports.</p>
<h2>The impact on mental health</h2>
<p>According to my research, young men who experience problems with their gambling are <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30232-2/fulltext">nine times</a> more likely to attempt suicide than those with no problems, and young women are five times more likely. This was after other things suchh as impulsivity, poor wellbeing and anxiety were taken into account, suggesting that young people who experience problem gambling are at considerable risk of suicidal ideation and attempts regardless of other pre-existing issues.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/esports-could-be-quietly-spawning-a-whole-new-generation-of-problem-gamblers-147124">Esports could be quietly spawning a whole new generation of problem gamblers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One study on young people in Bristol estimates that around <a href="https://www.begambleaware.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/gambling-and-problem-gambling-among-young-adults-revision-10818-final-publish-002.pdf">one in 20</a> between the ages of 17 and 20 start to experience gambling problems. All of this is potentially compounded by greater stress, anxiety and uncertainty that young people feel as a result of the pandemic. As COVID-19 continues to increase their vulnerabilities, the issues are likely to continue for years to come.</p>
<p>Despite clear concerns about the global impact of gambling on young people, more countries are starting to allow online betting, in many cases without support to protect people. A recent study for the World Economic Forum looking at the most prescient <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021">Global Risks</a> to society highlighted youth disillusionment and adverse technological advances as key concerns. Gambling intersects with both – and both are likely to be exacerbated by the pandemic. As the scale of the economic crisis becomes clear, it’s important that governments around the world recognise that gambling is not a solution to their problems.</p>
<ul>
<li>name has been changed for reasons of anonymity.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p><em>If you need help with problem gambling, you can seek NHS advice <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/gambling-addiction/">here</a>:</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Wardle receives funding from Wellcome, Economic Social Research Council, The Department of Digital Culture, Media and Sport, Greater Manchester Combined Local Authority, Gambling Research Exchange, the BBC and the National Institute for Health Research. In the past three years she has worked on one project funded by GambleAware. She was previously the Deputy Chair of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (2015-2020) recieving remuneration from the Gambling Commission. </span></em></p>Despite clear concerns about the global impact of problem betting, more governments are making it easier to accessHeather Wardle, Lord Kelvin Adam Smith research fellow at the University of Glasgow, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1500952020-11-13T16:42:52Z2020-11-13T16:42:52ZJoe Biden: how betting markets foresaw the result of the 2020 US election<p>Records of the betting on US presidential elections can be <a href="https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/0895330041371277">traced back to 1868</a>. Since then, no clear favourite for the White House had lost before 2016, except in 1948, when the 8 to 1 longshot and sitting president, Harry S. Truman, famously defeated his <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199797912.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199797912-e-029#oxfordhb-9780199797912-div1-218">Republican rival, Thomas E. Dewey</a>.</p>
<p>In 2016, the exception was repeated when Hillary Clinton, trading at 7 to 2 on (equivalent to a win probability of about 78%) as polls opened, lost in the electoral college to Donald Trump. In so doing, Trump defied not just the polls and the experts but the “wisdom of the crowd” as displayed in the betting markets. </p>
<p>Trump achieved this by converting a near 3 million vote loss in the popular vote into a victory by 77 votes in the electoral college. In a larger sense, it might be said that crowd wisdom was trumped by the arcane US electoral system.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Harry S Truman holding a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune wrongly calling the election for his rival Thomas E Dewey" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369290/original/file-20201113-21-vgu7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nobody got the 1948 election result right.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Associated Press photo by Byron Rollins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There was a similar consensus in the run up to the 2020 election that Trump would lose – but the degree of confidence displayed by the markets and the models diverged markedly. To illustrate, <a href="https://www.sportingindex.com/">Sporting Index</a>, the spread betting company, announced it thought Joe Biden would win with between 305 and 311 electoral votes as the polls opened on election day, with Trump trailing on 227 to 233 electoral votes.</p>
<p>Taking the mid-points of these spreads, this equated to a Biden triumph by 308 votes to 230 in the electoral college – a majority of 78. Similar estimates were contained or implicit in the odds offered by other bookmakers, betting exchanges and prediction markets. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, other major forecasting models were much more bullish about Biden’s prospects. Based on 40,000 simulations, the midpoint estimate of the model provided by <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo">Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight</a> put Biden ahead by 348 electoral college votes to 190 for Trump, a margin of 158. The <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2020/08/new-statesman-s-2020-us-presidential-election-forecast-explained">New Statesman model</a> made it 339 votes to 199 in favour of Biden. <a href="https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president">The Economist’s model</a> was even more lopsided in favour of Biden, estimating that he would prevail by 356 electoral votes to 182. Taking the unweighted mean of all three forecasting models, Biden was projected to win 348 votes in the electoral college to 190 for Trump.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1323765227524136964"}"></div></p>
<p>The other go-to place for expert opinion with a long track record of solid performance (except in 2016) is <a href="https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/21320/">Sabato’s Crystal Ball</a> based at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. This year it was projecting Biden to win the electoral college by 321 votes to 217. The <a href="https://pollyvote.com/en/__trashed/">PollyVote project</a>, widely published in academic journals, goes a step further, combining information contained in betting markets with forecasting models, experts and beyond. This year it forecast a Biden victory by 329 electoral votes to 209.</p>
<h2>Last bets please</h2>
<p>Ten days on from the close of voting and it seems <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-uncalled-races/">on current trends</a> that Biden will end up with 306 votes in the electoral college to 232 for Trump. This assumes that Georgia, which has yet to be called by the networks, will go as most independent observers expect: for Biden. </p>
<p>If this does happen, the betting spreads will be almost spot on. In fact, both these numbers are within the spreads offered on election day. If Georgia ends up after a recount in the Trump column the betting markets will still have performed well – certainly compared to the forecasting models.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-or-trump-betting-markets-are-more-cautious-than-polls-in-predicting-the-2020-us-election-149294">Biden or Trump? Betting markets are more cautious than polls in predicting the 2020 US election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What this tells us is that the betting and prediction markets, which respond to the weight of money traded on each candidate, and are informed by considerable professional insight, have this year recovered a reputation dating back to at least 1868, and in the case of the <a href="https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1421329/forcasting%20the%20outcome%20of%20closed%20door.pdf">Papal betting markets</a> as far back as 1503.</p>
<p>So what are they telling us now? In a press release issued by Sporting Index on November 12, the firm’s political traders forecast the date on which they expect Trump to leave the White House as February 26, 2021. How can this be so, given that the presidential inauguration date for the next term of office is January 20, 2021? At that point, the loser of the election ceases to be in office. </p>
<p>Could it be that Biden is inaugurated but Trump barricades himself inside the Oval Office for five weeks? More realistically, the traders are factoring in the small possibility of Trump clinging on for a second term. </p>
<p>The Betfair markets offer an insight into this. The current president still has a 7.8% chance, according to the exchange trading, of retaining office at the end of all legal challenges. This, and presumably all other avenues to seize or retain power, are factored into this probability. In conclusion, is it likely, based on the current evidence in the betting markets, that Trump will prevail over all established custom and evidence? Not at all. Is it possible? Yes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leighton Vaughan Williams 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>The bookies have got it right in all but two elections since 1868.Leighton Vaughan Williams, Professor of Economics and Finance. Director of the Betting Research Unit and the Political Forecasting Unit at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1492942020-11-02T15:46:01Z2020-11-02T15:46:01ZBiden or Trump? Betting markets are more cautious than polls in predicting the 2020 US election<p>The world is gripped by fevered speculation regarding the outcome of the US presidential election. Will there be a second term for Donald Trump, or will Joe Biden best him at the polls? In a <a href="https://twitter.com/BetfairExchange/status/1321477871286788101">recent tweet</a>, betfair.com, a British online gambling company, showed that more money has already been bet on this election on its exchange than on the 2019 Grand National horse race, the 2018 men’s football World Cup final and the Conor McGregor vs Floyd Mayweather boxing match combined.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1321477871286788101"}"></div></p>
<p>While we’ll know a lot more once the ballots begin to be counted (although this, in itself, could be a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b4f3932a-3e0e-49ae-9a19-415cdb80de19">protracted and contentious process</a>), there is currently a very wide array of opinion about what the most likely result will be.</p>
<p>Traditionally, both media coverage and scholars have focused on public opinion polls in evaluating likely election outcomes. Here, Biden has a commanding lead of 7-8% nationally, when you aggregate across various polling companies. In fact, sites such as <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html">Real Clear Politics</a> and <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/">FiveThirtyEight</a> show a remarkable stability in Biden’s polling advantage in recent months, in what has often felt like a chaotic and unpredictable campaign.</p>
<p>As we discuss in our weekly podcast (which can be found <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/horse-race-politics/id1532952719#episodeGuid=2ea04eea-5d30-4a8a-a43b-47be62f50fd3">here (Apple)</a> or <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/5VOeuVDnKwVNecCwMmzgS2?si=kNViBjTBShml_muG9_yb2w">here (Spotify)</a>), many polling analysts have pointed out, Biden’s polling lead is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/why-trump-vs-biden-lot-2016-why-it-s-not-n1243801">larger and more consistent</a> than Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. There are far <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/27/trump-biden-undecided-voters-polling/">fewer undecided voters</a> (estimated at about 3% in this cycle as opposed to 11% in 2016), and, of course, there’s been a <a href="https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html">massive upturn in early voting</a>. Crucially, Biden also holds (admittedly narrower) polling leads in the “battleground” states that will be crucial to the election outcome.</p>
<p>Forecasters who use polls to create an estimate of the likelihood of election results are therefore bullish about Biden’s chances – with FiveThiryEight giving the Democratic nominee an <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo">89%</a> chance and the The Economist forecast going as high as <a href="https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president">95%</a>.</p>
<p>But the election gamblers are considerably more cautious. When you translate the odds available for Biden across a range of gambling companies into probabilities, they give him <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/">a 64%</a> chance. While this has ticked up as the campaign has unfolded (and particularly following Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis) there remains a striking discrepancy. Why is this the case?</p>
<h2>Can polling be trusted?</h2>
<p>Fundamentally, the difference comes down to doubts about the validity of polling as a means of ascertaining voting intention in this election. While the electoral college gives Trump an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/28/electoral-college-explained-how-biden-faces-an-uphill-battle-in-the-us-election">in-built advantage</a>, this is taken into account in poll-based forecasts. Furthermore, while polling error is also factored in, many people are betting that the polls are systematically biased against Trump.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/522957-dont-believe-the-polls-trump-is-winning-bigly">recent article</a> in The Hill explained, there are several mechanisms that could create such an outcome. In the first place, there is something called <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057">social desirability bias</a>, which arises when a certain survey answer is perceived to be potentially offensive to the interviewer. With American politics as highly polarised as they are, voters might be “shy” about admitting their true intention to vote for Trump.</p>
<p>Second, there is a wider process in play whereby the polling industry is increasingly being conflated with the “lamestream media” in <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/trump-glide-reelection-republican-officials-316457">American political discourse</a>. This might lead to a refusal of some likely Trump voters to participate in polling, and may encourage others to seek to “<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/504896-are-trump-supporters-punking-the-polls">punk</a>” pollsters by deliberately misleading them.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, it is extremely difficult to know how much the polls can be trusted – and this, alongside the memory of the way the 2016 election result was so wrongly predicted, helps to explain the relative caution of the betting markets.</p>
<p>It also shows us just how much is at stake in this campaign for the polling industry. In order for the election to be close run, or for Trump to win, the polls would have to be systematically biased against him to the tune of about 5% nationally. The very consistency of polling would, in retrospect, be damning for pollsters, and massively diminish the allure of polling in both future election races and day-to-day political coverage.</p>
<p>It is likely that polling companies are aware of this, which throws up a further possibility – what if Biden’s support is being systematically underestimated? With pollsters incentivised to seek out and weight Trump supporters in their analysis – while likely to face little recrimination for underestimating Biden’s support – this is not as unlikely as it may seem.</p>
<p>So where does this leave us? Well, as the baseball-playing philsopher Yogi Berra is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/aug/07/corrections-and-clarifications">often quoted as saying</a>: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”</p>
<p>One key consideration is that even the most bullish forecasts for Biden are not absolute, and they leave (admittedly narrow) scope for Trump to win. Biden has certainly run a frontrunner’s campaign, largely aiming to avoid mistakes and lately focusing his <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/2020-election-biden-trump/index.html">campaign activities on traditionally “red” states</a>. In a few short days, we’ll discover whether this was smart strategy or electoral hubris.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149294/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Wall received funding from the AHRC to investigate gambling odds as a means of electoral analysis. Full details can be found at this link: <a href="https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FL010011%2F1">https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FL010011%2F1</a> </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Thomas receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allaina Kilby 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>Punters are more cautious than the polls, suggesting this election might be closer than the media is reporting.Matt Wall, Associate Professor, Political and Cultural Studies, Swansea UniversityAllaina Kilby, Lecturer in Journalism, Swansea UniversityRichard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Media and Communication, Swansea UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1241572019-09-26T20:12:42Z2019-09-26T20:12:42ZThe odds you’ll gamble on the Grand Final are high when punting is woven into our very social fabric<p>With the AFL Grand Final between Richmond and Greater Western Sydney this Saturday on the hallowed turf of the MCG, punters around the country will be encouraged to place their bets hoping they can score a sweet victory. </p>
<p>Many will even have <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-13/gambling-operators-are-invading-your-smartphone/11405678">personalised messages</a> to bet sent to their phones.</p>
<p>But there have been major concerns at the links between sports betting and the AFL this year. In recent months, Collingwood’s Jaidyn Stephenson <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-20/jaidyn-stephenson-afl-betting-collingwood-magpies/11228156">bet on AFL matches</a>, which led to him being banned for ten games. This brought the issue back onto the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/qld-grandstand-saturday/queensland-sport/11214106">public radar</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-a-kick-sporting-statues-can-enshrine-players-and-also-capture-pivotal-cultural-moments-123516">More than a kick: sporting statues can enshrine players and also capture pivotal cultural moments</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Stephenson announced during a press conference he was regretful, would take responsibility for his actions, and promised to <a href="https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-young-gun-jaidyn-stephenson-learns-his-fate-after-betting-probe-c-173782">do better in the future</a>. </p>
<p>But what if Stephenson was merely reflecting the norms of Australian society, which has seen the establishment of sports betting as an <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01482963150013007">everyday social practice</a>?</p>
<p>Australia is the gambling world leader by a mile. Australia’s betting losses per adult are the highest in the world, and they’re around <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/world/australia/australians-gambling-betting-machines.html">50% higher</a> than the country in second place, Singapore.</p>
<p>And with sports betting heavily marketed and apps making it easier than ever to bet, punting will only become more deeply entrenched in Australian culture. If we really want to do something about tackling gambling related harm, we need to de-normalise sports betting as an everyday social practice in Australia. </p>
<h2>A season of gambling debates</h2>
<p>Debate about the AFL’s relationship with sports betting has raged all season. Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley called the punishment of Jaidyn Stephenson a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-20/nathan-buckley-accuses-afl-of-hypocrisy-over-gambling/11228402">hypocrisy</a> given the AFL has a long-standing sponsorship deal with <a href="https://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-12-01/beteasy-named-exclusive-afl-wagering-partner">BetEasy</a>. </p>
<p>Brisbane Lions have announced betting company Neds will appear on their <a href="https://www.lions.com.au/news/2019-06-26/neds-extend-with-the-lions">guernsey</a> from next season. And concerns about AFL’s relationship with gambling companies even led Western Bulldogs captain Easton Wood to say he would support players taking a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/afl-urged-to-cut-player-pay-to-curb-gambling-advertising/11251154">pay cut</a> to end gambling sponsorship.</p>
<p>These concerns are related to the effect gambling has on society. Gambling expenditure in Australia was estimated <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/latest-edition-australian-gambling-statistics/">at A$23.7 billion</a> in 2016–2017, an average of A$1,251 per adult who gambled. Research estimates between <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report">80,000 and 160,000</a> Australian adults suffer from severe gambling problems; and between 250,000 and 350,000 are identified as at moderate risk. </p>
<p>Problem gambling can lead to a severe harms for the partners, families, communities and employers of gamblers – including <a href="http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/307">financial hardship</a>, family breakdown, headaches and nausea, stress, anxiety, and depression. In fact, the social cost of gambling harm is conservatively estimated at <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report">A$4.7 billion per annum</a>.</p>
<h2>Australians associate sport with betting</h2>
<p>While gambling and related harm has traditionally been understood as an <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315001307">individual issue</a>, this is changing with growing recognition forms of gambling such as sports betting are becoming <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/sports-betting-embedded-australian-sporting-culture/">normalised</a>.</p>
<p>Sports betting is now the fastest growing sector of the gambling market. What’s more, sports betting is heavily marketed, especially during the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00856.x">television broadcast</a> of sports like the <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjt1LOZy-vkAhXegUsFHUHiCogQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insidegambling.com.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0016%2F23083%2FResearch-report-Brand-community-and-sports-betting-in-Australia.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3E0EKimeN41COuCzvliGhu">AFL</a>. And a recent report pointed to how Sportsbet – one of the biggest players in the market, has spent nearly <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-05/sportsbet-documents-reveal-millions-spent-on-marketing/10833196">half a billion dollars</a> over the past five years on marketing to Australians.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-long-and-complicated-history-of-aboriginal-involvement-in-football-117669">The long and complicated history of Aboriginal involvement in football</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Technological advancements, such as the introduction of mobile phone sports betting apps, now mean Australians can bet on sports <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9671-9">anywhere, anytime, and on anything</a>. </p>
<p>Australians now punt on their phones in the home, at work, at the game, or out with their friends. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315001307">Research</a> has shown sports betting apps relate to social grouping, passion, mateship, competition, and knowledge of the game, creating social norms that associate sport with betting. </p>
<p>It also means people who would not traditionally bet, such as females on a night out with male friends, are now getting involved.</p>
<p>So, it’s no surprise AFL stars such as Jaidyn Stephenson are engaging in sports betting. Their behaviour merely reflects the norms in Australian society. </p>
<h2>Don’t blame the players when betting is in our social fabric</h2>
<p>If we wish to tackle gambling related harm, and prevent sports stars from having a punt, then we need to first understand and address these norms. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-took-a-gamble-on-premier-league-betting-odds-and-showed-that-football-bets-should-come-with-a-health-warning-108848">We took a gamble on Premier League betting odds – and showed that football bets should come with a health warning</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some suggestions include the AFL <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/afl-urged-to-cut-player-pay-to-curb-gambling-advertising/11251154">phasing out gambling sponsorship</a> much the same way as they did with tobacco 30 years ago. </p>
<p>However, we still don’t know enough about how, why, where and when <a href="https://www.crcpress.com/Digital-Gambling-Theorizing-Gamble-Play-Media/Albarran-Torres/p/book/9781138303850">people use</a> mobile phone sports betting apps. </p>
<p>This is the focus for a new government funded project: <a href="https://rms.arc.gov.au/RMS/Report/Download/Report/a3f6be6e-33f7-4fb5-98a6-7526aaa184cf/189">In it to win it - An interdisciplinary investigation of sports betting</a>. The project aims to understand how young adults use, communicate about and experience mobile phone sports betting applications. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/loud-obnoxious-and-at-times-racist-the-sordid-history-of-afl-barracking-119080">Loud, obnoxious and at times racist: the sordid history of AFL barracking</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The research – led by myself with a team of sociologists, geographers and neuroscientists – will combine visual ethnography and cognitive neuroscience methods, such as eye tracking, to examine how people use mobile phone sports betting apps and how this shapes sports betting practices. </p>
<p>The project findings will enhance understanding of social practices of sports betting and the role of mobile phone sports betting apps, to help inform gambling policy and programs to support better health and social outcomes.</p>
<p>So, next time an AFL star is caught and pilloried for betting on a game we should recognise they are merely reflecting our social fabric. The AFL could make a start by taking responsibility and rejecting gambling sponsorship.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124157/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ross Gordon has received funding from the Australian Research Council, and the the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. </span></em></p>Debate about gambling has raged throughout the AFL season, but it’ll take a cultural shift for there to be any meaningful change.Ross Gordon, Professor, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1199062019-07-17T10:16:50Z2019-07-17T10:16:50ZBrexit: wisdom of crowds proves effective predictor of Britain’s chaotic EU departure<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283285/original/file-20190709-44457-1yl0aze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU2MjY5NTA1MiwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTE2NjYwMDA4NiIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xMTY2NjAwMDg2L21lZGl1bS5qcGciLCJtIjoxLCJkIjoic2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrLW1lZGlhIn0sIlF1d2VPanVWMFZ0T05iTmZNN29IY2J6ak1MdyJd%2Fshutterstock_1166600086.jpg&pi=33421636&m=1166600086&src=qfIN1MCgipeTEwimblNvTw-2-14">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Winston Churchill <a href="http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/RusnEnig.html">once described Russia</a> as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. Many feel the same about Brexit.</p>
<p>Achieving Brexit is a fiendishly complex task. And when the process is led by a government with a tiny majority, blocked by a divided parliament and confronted with a split country, the path out of the EU looks far from certain. With more potential endings than a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror:_Bandersnatch">Bandersnatch</a>-style plot line, it’s no wonder that the one thing commentators and experts seem to agree on is that <a href="https://inews.co.uk/opinion/brexit-no-deal-second-referendum-impossible/">Brexit is unpredictable</a>.</p>
<p>In these times of <a href="https://qbeeurope.com/unpredictability/coping-with-an-unpredictable-world/">radical uncertainty</a>, accurately forecasting what will happen becomes more difficult – as statistical models built on historical data often don’t work. It also becomes more necessary as individuals and organisations attempt to navigate their way through the unknown. Anyone who <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-01/no-deal-brexit-ferry-contracts-to-be-scrapped/">chartered ferries</a> or <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-47640908">stockpiled toilet roll</a> before March 31, when the UK was originally scheduled to leave, could attest to this.</p>
<p>So what to do when statistical models can’t help? </p>
<h2>Ask the crowd</h2>
<p>Crowd forecasting is a relatively new approach to predicting the future. It’s getting serious attention, because as the world becomes more complex and uncertain, it’s unlikely that any single person will have enough information to build a complete picture.</p>
<p>When individuals make a prediction, partial information and personal experience can lead to errors. These individual errors, however, tend to be cancelled out when predictions from a group of people <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/collective-wisdom/some-microfoundations-of-collective-wisdom/29B1A9227DD7D3F531840705AAD0CABF">are aggregated</a>. Companies, such as the car manufacturer Ford, have cottoned on and have used one type of crowd forecasting called a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market">Prediction Market</a> to forecast vehicle sales. This has been found to be <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266658533_Corporate_Prediction_Markets_Evidence_from_Google_Ford_and_Firm_X1">more accurate</a> than traditional forecasting methods.</p>
<p>This harnessing of collective human intelligence is sometimes called <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wisdom-Crowds-Many-Smarter-Than/dp/0349116059">the “wisdom of crowds”</a>, a term popularised by James Surowiecki. He argued that when a diverse group of people come up with an answer it is likely to be better than that of the smartest person in that group, or even a group of experts. The accuracy of the crowd has been demonstrated through examples ranging from guessing the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/075450a0">weight of an ox</a> or the number of <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0130">jelly beans in a jar</a> to <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658095079">the performance of stock markets</a>.</p>
<h2>But does it work?</h2>
<p>But what happens when you start asking a crowd questions about <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614524255">events of high socioeconomic or political importance</a>? Does a crowd measure up to professional analysts – and how <a href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xap-0000040.pdf">does psychology interact with their forecasting ability</a>?</p>
<p>These were some of the questions posed by the <a href="https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/newsroom/iarpa-in-the-news/2015/439-the-good-judgment-project">Good Judgment Project</a>. Sponsored by IARPA, the US intelligence agency, it engaged thousands of people around the world to assign probabilities to the likelihood of different global events occurring, <a href="https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2374">using, among others, a forecasting method called prediction polls</a>. They found that the collective forecasts of the crowd were surprisingly accurate – at times outperforming those of US intelligence officers. </p>
<p>With 2019 looking so unpredictable, we at Nesta’s <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/developing-new-centre-collective-intelligence-design-learning-how-combine-human-and-machine-intelligence-scale/">Centre for Collective Intelligence Design</a> partnered with <a href="https://www.gjopen.com/">Good Judgment Open</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future">BBC Future</a> to put crowd wisdom to the test. We wanted to see what we could learn by asking the public to forecast some major Brexit-related events.</p>
<p>To do this, we ask our crowd – anyone can sign up and so far more than 2,000 people have registered to take part worldwide – a series of questions and then judge their answers against actual events. At the halfway point of <a href="https://www.gjopen.com/challenges/34-the-2019-nesta-brexit-and-beyond-challenge-you-predict-the-future">our year-long challenge</a>, here are four of the forecasts made by our crowd so far and how accurate they’ve proved to be. </p>
<p>We asked:</p>
<p><strong>1. What will happen with Article 50 by March 30, 2019?</strong></p>
<p>What happened: The European Commission granted a conditional extension of Article 50 until October 31, 2019.</p>
<p>What the crowd said: Article 50 will be extended by the UK and the European Council (final consensus forecast: 83% probability).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283986/original/file-20190714-173347-1r392xq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Green-Doe Graphic Design Ltd</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More than 600 forecasters answered our question about the original deadline for Article 50. The question was posted in the last week of December 2018 and open for three months, but our forecasters made their collective judgement early. Already in the first week of January 2019, the crowd forecast showed that an extension of Article 50 was the most likely outcome, versus Article 50 being revoked or the UK meeting the deadline to leave the EU by March 30, 2019.</p>
<p><strong>2. What will be the closing value for the pound against the euro on April 1, 2019?</strong></p>
<p>What happened: The closing value was €1.17.</p>
<p>What the crowd said: The closing value would be between €1.10 - €1.20 (final consensus forecast: 96% probability).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283987/original/file-20190714-173334-1x66eqn.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Green-Doe Graphic Design Ltd</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This question was live on the Good Judgment platform for 67 days from January 24, 2019. When it came to predicting the performance of the pound versus the euro, our forecasters assigned a probability on the “right side of maybe” (more than 50%) that the exchange rate would be between €1.10-€1.20 on 62 days over this three-month period. The probability for the option containing the correct final exchange rate didn’t dip below 60% after February 20, 2019, more than a full month before the original Article 50 deadline which many feared would cause trouble for the pound.</p>
<p><strong>3. In the European Parliament elections: a) What percentage of votes will the Change UK Party win? b) What percentage of votes will the Brexit Party win?</strong></p>
<p>What happened: the Brexit Party and Change UK received 30.74% and 3.31% of the vote share respectively.</p>
<p>What the crowd said: The most likely vote share for the Brexit Party would be between 30% and 35%. A vote share of less than 5% was most probable for Change UK.</p>
<p>These two questions had the quickest turnaround, they were open for the three weeks leading up to the May 22 election date. In both cases, after initial periods of high fluctuation, the crowd assigned the highest probability to the option containing the “winning” vote-share percentage almost a whole week before the public vote on May 22.</p>
<p>We saw some interesting differences when we compared our crowd’s predictions for the Brexit Party vote share to the betting exchange platform, Smarkets (which uses the prediction market approach to forecasting). The Smarkets crowd assigned a much higher likelihood to a 35%+ vote share for the <a href="https://smarkets.com/event/2147914/">Brexit Party</a> (40% at closing) whereas our crowd were much more conservative and only estimated a 17% probability for that outcome.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Smarkets crowd was considerably more confident than our crowd when it came to <a href="https://smarkets.com/event/2147897/">Change UK</a> and closed with a 77% probability that they would win less than 5% vote share (our crowd said 55%).</p>
<p><strong>4. Will the UK have a new prime minister by July 1, 2019?</strong></p>
<p>What happened: the new prime minister for the UK is expected to be announced in the week beginning July 22.</p>
<p>What the crowd said: “No” with a closing consensus probability of 82%.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283989/original/file-20190714-173338-1y752lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Green-Doe Graphic Design Ltd</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This question, first posted on December 21, 2018 and live for six months, was a race of two halves. Our crowd of more than 2,500 forecasters made a decisive push for “No” (70% probability) by the second week in April 2019. This followed a two-week period of uncertainty where Yes and No were forecast as almost equally probable after the original deadline for Article 50.</p>
<p>Given events over the past months and the imminent appointment of a new conservative prime minister, this could have easily been our first crowd upset, but our forecasters eventually proved accurate once again.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>We’ve upped the stakes on the new version of our Brexit question for the October 31 deadline. Forecasters now have six options to choose between when predicting what will happen, including a general election and a people’s vote. Will the crowd get it right again? Currently, the crowd is predicting another Article 50 extension but no-deal Brexit and a general election aren’t far behind.</p>
<p>You can find all of the questions and try your own hand at forecasting by signing up at <a href="https://goodjudgment.io/nesta/register.html">You Predict 2019: Brexit and Beyond</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aleks Berditchevskaia is an employee of Nesta, an innovation foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathy Peach is an employee of Nesta, an innovation foundation. She is a member of the Labour party and a trustee of the charity Mines Advisory Group (MAG).</span></em></p>They’ve been right so far – and the crowd is now forecasting another Article 50 extension.Aleks Berditchevskaia, Senior Researcher, Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, NestaKathy Peach, Head of the Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, NestaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1186482019-06-13T14:41:35Z2019-06-13T14:41:35ZNew gambling tax is moving up the agenda – here’s how it needs to work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279325/original/file-20190613-32361-t70zh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Feeling lucky?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/q661yH-ewRg">tiny_packages</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gambling has become a talking point in the UK Conservative Party leadership election after the health secretary Matt Hancock <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9265028/matt-hancock-tax-bookies-gambling/">called for</a> a £100m-plus annual levy on betting companies. If chosen as the next prime minister, Hancock said he intends to impose a 1% tax on these companies’ profits to pay for treatment and research into this area. </p>
<p>Labour have also called for this policy and a radical overhaul of the UK Gambling Act. The party <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/campaigncountdown/pages/2214/attachments/original/1537438117/11519_18_Gambling_addiction_Paper-_Tom_Watson_v7_%28ELECTRONIC%29%28WEB%29.pdf?1537438117">has described</a> gambling as a “hidden epidemic”, and deputy leader Tom Watson <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/26/labour-betting-firms-levy-gambling-addiction">has promised</a> that it would introduce a mandatory levy on the industry if elected to government. </p>
<p>It is certainly good to see this issue being addressed by frontline politicians. But imposing a levy is one thing, spending it wisely another – for the swathes of people affected by gambling harms, it is vital that we get this right. </p>
<h2>The ripple effect</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1807">There are</a> around 340,000 problem gamblers in the UK, and over half a million more people at moderate risk of harm from an expanding <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Addictive-Consumption-Capitalism-Modernity-and-Excess/Reith/p/book/9780415268271">commercial landscape</a> of products, particularly electronic gaming machines and games on online platforms. </p>
<p>The impacts from problem gambling spread out to families, communities and society as a whole. As well as financial problems, <a href="https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Measuring-gambling-related-harms.pdf">they include</a> relationships breaking down, the abuse or neglect of partners and children and, in extreme cases, suicide – with all the corresponding burdens on social and health services that this involves. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279324/original/file-20190613-32373-c6vrs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eyes down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/q661yH-ewRg">Jordan Bauer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For every one person with problems, it is <a href="http://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australias-Gambling-Industries-1999-Report-Vol.-1-.pdf">estimated that</a> five to ten other people end up being affected. Cost <a href="https://www.ippr.org/publications/cards-on-the-table">estimates</a> to the UK alone range from £200m to £1.2 billion per year. The Faculty of Public Health has <a href="https://www.fph.org.uk/media/1810/fph-gambling-position-statement-june-2018.pdf">called this</a> a “serious and worsening public health issue”. </p>
<p>In Australia, where the evidence base is more fully developed, the burden of harms on health and well-being is <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/69/Research-report-assessing-gambling-related-harm-in-vic.pdf">estimated</a> to be comparable to alcohol misuse. From an economic perspective, it actually costs societies more if they ignore these harms than if they address them. </p>
<p>Several years ago in Australia’s state of Victoria, <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/the-social-cost-of-gambling-to-victoria-121/">for example</a>, total tax revenue from gambling was AU$1.6 billion (£874m) while estimated social costs were AU$7 billion, a net deficit of AU$5.4 billion. </p>
<h2>The funding gap</h2>
<p>In the UK, the current system of funding for research, education and treatment of gambling harms relies on voluntary industry donations to a charitable organisation, GambleAware. Too often, GambleAware <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/03/gambling-industry-fails-to-meet-target-donation-to-addiction-charity">struggles</a> to meet its target contributions of just 0.1% of the money that industry retains once bets have been paid out – known as the gross gambling yield. That’s about £10m in donations for an industry whose gross gambling yield <a href="https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-industry-statistics.pdf">exceeds</a> £14 billion. In this context, a £100m annual levy could clearly make an enormous difference.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/online-gambling-children-among-easy-prey-for-advertisers-who-face-few-sanctions-117480">Online gambling: children among easy prey for advertisers who face few sanctions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet while Hancock’s promises to fund treatment and research are welcome, he makes no mention of prevention. This is disappointing, since any attempt to reduce gambling harms <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1807">must address</a> causes and not simply consequences. That prevention is better than cure is well recognised across other areas of public health. It is also a matter of <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1807">social justice</a>, since those who suffer from gambling are <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1807">disproportionately</a> likely to be poorer people from the poorest areas. </p>
<p>In the UK in 2017-18, the <a href="https://about.gambleaware.org/media/1836/gamble-aware-annual-review-2017-18.pdf">total spending</a> via GambleAware on prevention was less than £1.5m, which amounts to approximately 2p per capita. Compare this to a jurisdiction that treats gambling as a public health issue – in New Zealand, for instance, where harm reduction is a legislative requirement, the <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/strategy-prevent-minimise-gambling-harm-2016-17-2018-19-may16.pdf">annual budget</a> for prevention is more than NZ$18m (£9.3m) for a population of 4.7 million. That’s 99 times more per capita than the UK. </p>
<p>Prevention would involve using legislation to curtail advertising, particularly the <a href="https://www.gamingintelligence.com/blog/44151-opinion-the-future-is-now-for-personalisation">personalised marketing</a> that we see all over social media. We should be stricter about promotions and inducements, such as special offers and “free” bets, and stop the use of online credit. </p>
<p>We need tougher regulations on the design and placement of gambling products: this was <a href="https://www.gambling.com/news/uk-government-confirms-fobt-change-now-set-for-april-2019-1674400">done recently</a> with high-stakes machines, but betting companies <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/bookmakers-bet-on-roulette-style-games-to-bypass-new-fobt-rules">are already</a> finding ways around these rules with different machines. </p>
<p>Prevention also means targeting people who are at risk. This sort of approach is under developed in gambling, so we need to invest in research to understand what works, for whom and under what circumstances. This also needs to be supported by public health campaigns to increase awareness. </p>
<h2>Optimising the system</h2>
<p>There are several other critical considerations. The first is that funds from a levy need to be ringfenced. Experience from other jurisdictions such as <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gambling-research-exchange-ontario-cut-1.5123316">Ontario, Canada</a> shows that if funding is not ringfenced, monies can become swallowed by national healthcare budgets. There are precedents for doing this in the UK: all monies from the sugar tax <a href="https://www.funding4sport.co.uk/2017/01/16/ministers-confirm-sugar-tax-will-ringfenced-school-sports/">go to</a> school sports, for instance, while from next year the majority of the Highways England budget <a href="https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2018/10/29/autumn-budget-2018-pothole-cash-and-ved-to-be-ring-fenced-for-roads-funding">will be</a> ringfenced funds from vehicle road duty. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279219/original/file-20190612-32361-1rib82s.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Machine learning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blurred-image-slots-machines-cruise-liner-767552770?src=EXvmSCFxiOZawkS5wGQZ-A-1-70&studio=1">Igor_Koptilin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Prevention, education and treatment all <a href="https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/documents-by-section/departments/anthropology/Fair-Game-Web-Final.pdf">need to be</a> grounded in robust and trusted evidence. One option involves channelling funding through the infrastructure and expertise of independent academic research councils such as the Economic and Social Research Council and the Medical Research Council. </p>
<p>Another would be to adopt the Department of Health and Social Care’s highly successful model of <a href="https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/how-we-are-managed/our-structure/research/policy-research-units.htm">policy research units</a>. This could help to produce timely evidence that keeps up with the speed at which gambling technologies are changing.</p>
<p>Finally, we need to <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1807">overhaul the system</a> in which commercial gambling is regulated. This would involve a new gambling act that is focused on protecting public health rather than promoting gambling as a leisure activity. This new approach is long overdue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerda Reith has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, the Danish Research Council, the Scottish Government, the Gambling Commission and GambleAware. She has received honorarium from the Gambling Research Exchange Ontario and Alberta Gambling Research Institute (AGRI). She has had travel and accommodation expenses paid by GambleAware, government departments and universities. She is a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform's Commission on Crime and Problem Gambling, and receives reimbursement for travel expenses from them. The research paper on which much of this article is based was co-written by Professor Robert D Rogers of Bangor University. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erika Langham has received research funds from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Gambling Research Australia, Department of Human Services, New Zealand Ministry of Health, Menzies School of Health, Education Queensland, Lowitja Institute, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and the National Health and Medical Research Council. She has received honoraria from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario; and had travel expenses paid by Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Gambling Impact Society, Gamble Aware and the Gambling Research Exchange Ontario.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Wardle receives funding from Wellcome, GambleAware and the Gambling Commission. She has also received funding from the Department of Health, the ESRC and MRC and various Local Authorities. She runs an independent research consultancy which provides research services for public and third sector organisations. She does not and has not provided research or consultancy services to industry. She is Head of the Gambling & Place Research Hub at Geofutures which receives funding from local government. She has received travel bursaries from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, Ontario Responsible Gambling Council and British Columbia Lottery Corporation. She is Deputy Chair of the Advisory Board on Safer Gambling, a group providing independent advice to the Gambling Commission on gambling policy and practice. This is funded by the Gambling Commission. </span></em></p>Matt Hancock wants a new levy to tackle gambling harms, but it’s a lost opportunity unless you spend it the right way.Gerda Reith, Professor of Social Science, University of GlasgowErika Langham, Lecturer in Health Promotion, CQUniversity AustraliaHeather Wardle, Assistant Professor in Gambling Behaviour, London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1162242019-04-30T10:45:25Z2019-04-30T10:45:25ZCan James Holzhauer be stopped? A former ‘Jeopardy!’ champion weighs in<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271556/original/file-20190429-194606-gzfj5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=64%2C39%2C1056%2C628&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The sports gambler from Las Vegas has dominated the game like no one else in its 35-year history.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.jeopardy.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_960_/public/2019-04/james_1600x900.jpg?itok=KDThUg8Z">Jeopardy Productions</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1997, fresh out of graduate school, underemployed and watching a lot of television, I realized I was pretty good at “Jeopardy!” </p>
<p>I decided to try out. After a couple tests, interviews, and months of waiting, I was called in, pushed onto a soundstage in Culver City – and won more money in two tape days than I had made in the previous two years, plus two Chevy Camaros. Before 2003, five-time champions were retired with such automotive parting gifts and invited back to play in the annual Tournament of Champions. </p>
<p>During that first run and a later “Ultimate Tournament,” I played the seven-time champion who held the record for the longest winning streak before Ken Jennings, along with three eventual or past winners of the Tournament of Champions. I won all but one of those games. In total, <a href="https://www.j-archive.com/showplayerstats.php?player_id=417">my Jeopardy resume spans 10 games, with eight wins and two tournament losses</a>. </p>
<p>But James Holzhauer is in another league. </p>
<p>The sports gambler from Las Vegas has dominated the game like no one else in its 35-year history. His wins are so lopsided that he’s rendered all but two of his 36 competitors incapable of threatening him in Final Jeopardy. <a href="http://www.j-archive.com/showplayerstats.php?player_id=12600">His average winnings</a> are only a bit smaller than <a href="https://www.jeopardy.com/jbuzz/streaker-updates/james-holzhauer-beats-roger-craigs-1-day-record">the one-day record he demolished</a>. Aside from the number of wins, he is <a href="https://thejeopardyfan.com/2019/04/james-holzhauer-ken-jennings-comparison.html">statistically on par</a> with <a href="https://thejeopardyfan.com/statistics/ken-jennings-final-statistics">74-game winner Ken Jennings</a> – except that Holzhauer wins about twice as much money per game, thanks to his aggressive bets. It’s akin to an NBA player averaging 95 points per game. </p>
<p>How is he doing it? </p>
<p>You might think “Jeopardy!” is a contest of pure cogitation, in which the ability to recall trivia is all that matters. It isn’t. Elite success on “Jeopardy!” requires laser-like focus on winning, via strategy and discipline.</p>
<p>Of course, he couldn’t have made it this far without a mastery of U.S. history, world capitals, the periodic table and all the other standards of cultural literacy that are the show’s stock-in-trade.</p>
<p>But his success also depends on his mastery of the Jeopardy signaling device, a pocket-flashlight-sized plastic tube with a button on one end. You might notice many of Holzhauer’s opponents holding their buzzers aloft in frustration. Since the buzzer rewards timing rather than speed – a technician activates them after Trebek finishes reading a question – buzzing while waving it around is as effective as a wild baseball swing. </p>
<p>Holzhauer keeps his buzzer steady on the lectern, with no wasted motion: You can barely notice him ringing in. The more experience he’s gained with the buzzer, the more of an advantage he accrues. Each new opponent needs to get accustomed to the buzzer; by the time they do, the game is already out of hand. </p>
<p>Then there’s the way he plays. Rather than following convention – going vertically from easy answers to harder ones – Holzhauer marches horizontally across the bottom of the board, selecting the $1,000 squares in order to build a bank, and then almost always doubling his money on the first Daily Double he finds. Even with a commanding lead, he keeps playing aggressively, making Daily Double bets that are nearly quadruple the average wager, while making similarly megalithic Final Jeopardy bets.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271558/original/file-20190429-194637-3221bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Holzhauer wastes no time in going straight for the $1,000 answers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://img.apmcdn.org/3d99c71126409e8d40c8e7190f5fac466606dda6/normal/7d3015-20160918-prince-jeopardy-jpg.jpg">NBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There have been Jeopardy greats who have had comparable ease recalling answers and who are as good as Holzhauer on the buzzer. Hunting for and betting big on Daily Doubles isn’t a new tactic either – <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-man-who-solved-jeopardy/">the era of big data has nudged Jeopardy play in these directions over the last 15 years</a>. </p>
<p>But Holzhauer is among the best at all three skills, and is by far the most daring when it comes to his betting strategy.</p>
<p>After reflecting on my conventional, cautious gameplay in my first five wins, I bet far more aggressively in my last five tournament games, wagering the maximum on four out of five Daily Doubles. However, in tournament play, I faced veteran champions, who had comparable experience with the buzzer. Controlling all the Daily Doubles as Holzhauer has done against novices wasn’t feasible. He will keep playing until someone beats him. </p>
<p>So how can he be beaten? </p>
<p>What one can do, another can do. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/93e6zf/jeopardys_daily_double_heatmap_oc/">The placement of Daily Doubles is public knowledge</a>, with some squares more likely to contain the bonus than others. Anyone who wants to beat Holzhauer must try to find them first. To do that, they need to challenge his dominance on the buzzer. Contestants should use as much buzzer practice time in rehearsal and during commercial breaks as the producers are willing to give them, and ought to read <a href="https://www.overdrive.com/media/2338104/secrets-of-the-buzzer">the same advice of former champions that Holzhauer used to prepare</a>.</p>
<p>Humor or trash talk during a game may be useless, but it’s worth trying to disrupt his flow. Too often, his opponents seem psychologically broken within minutes. Holzhauer is relentless, and his competitors must keep taking shots, even if they trail.</p>
<p>Players should habituate themselves out of everyday risk aversion, at least for the show: If you’re too cautious, you assure yourself of losing. In his first two games, Holzhauer’s opponents made timid bets, even after seeing him bet it all. Had they been as aggressive, they would have stayed within striking distance. </p>
<p>Clearly, Holzhauer’s confidence has swelled. He isn’t afraid of losing. His opponents need to give him a reason to be.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hfe5xQ1M7Jw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The wins – and cash – keep piling up.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116224/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Rooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There have been ‘Jeopardy!’ greats who can easily answer all the questions, who have mastered the buzzer and who bet big on the Daily Doubles. But Holzhauer possesses an unprecedented level of daring.Michael Rooney, Professor of Philosophy, Pasadena City CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1139722019-03-21T16:36:52Z2019-03-21T16:36:52ZMarch Madness: With gambling legal in eight states, who really wins?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265152/original/file-20190321-93039-fjdvzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The odds of more legal betting are good. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Sports-Gambling-Fighting-the-Fix/019cd6deda78476b8451af5bbc2f31e3/5/0">AP Photo/John Locher</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>March means springtime, but also breathless headlines of Cinderellas, busted brackets and buzzer beaters. </p>
<p>This year, it’ll also include talk of “sharps,” “handles” and “point spreads,” as millions more Americans are able to openly wager for the first time on March Madness – the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. That’s thanks to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court-sports-betting-new-jersey.html">U.S. Supreme Court ruling</a> that allowed states to legalize sports betting. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://bellisario.psu.edu/people/individual/john-affleck">sports journalism professor</a>, I’ve been following the evolution of sports gambling for several years – back to a time when it was portrayed as a revolutionary and scary moment for fans and teams alike. </p>
<p>With millions more Americans gambling legally, it’s no longer scary, but that doesn’t mean some officials and observers aren’t concerned about perils in its rapid growth.</p>
<h2>The legal bandwagon</h2>
<p>Most tournament gambling is still illegal, but that’s changing quickly.</p>
<p>According to a survey conducted by Morning Consult for the American Gaming Association, <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/new/americans-will-wager-8-5-billion-on-march-madness/">47 million adults in the United State will wager US$8.5 billion</a> on March Madness this year, including 4.1 million who will do so for the first time at a casino sportsbook or online using a legal app. The rest of the bets, including the tens of millions made in office pools around the country, will be illegal. </p>
<p>Yes, you heard that right. <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/march-madness-illegal-pools_n_6889520.html">Your office pool is most likely illegal</a>.</p>
<p>Last year, the American Gaming Association <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/new/97-of-expected-10-billion-wagered-on-march-madness-to-be-bet-illegally/">estimated that $10 billion was at stake</a>, but the calculation method has since changed. We do know that 97 percent of the action was illegal, including office pools. Nevada accounted for the legal betting.</p>
<p>Now, as is the case in situations with state-by-state legislation, <a href="https://www.actionnetwork.com/education/ncaa-tournament-legal-sports-betting-states-march-madness-2019">the rules vary</a> from place to place. </p>
<p>Early adopter New Jersey has both casinos and online apps ready to take bets. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, now has several brick-and-mortar sportsbooks, but legal online betting is still a few months away. With just six betting locations open last month, Pennsylvania’s combined handle – the total of all sports wagering – <a href="https://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/?pr=844">was about $31.5 million</a>, generating tax revenue of about $700,000. Most of that went to the state. </p>
<p>It’s early, but “we know it’ll be busy and there’ll be a bump” in action this month because of March Madness, Doug Harbach, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board told me in an interview. Two new locations for sports betting just opened, a sign of how quickly gambling is spreading.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, not much can stop bettors from putting money down on illegal online gambling sites outside the United States, and the American Gaming Association <a href="https://pictures.reuters.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIH9Q79PQ&SMLS=1&RW=1264&RH=744&POPUPPN=2&POPUPIID=2C0FQEQL3LKWJ">estimates</a> 5.2 million Americans will do exactly that over the next few weeks. It’s the way many gamblers have put money down in previous years. Though illegal, enforcement has been light. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265155/original/file-20190321-93044-1jhw1jp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most March Madness gamblers predict Duke will win the 2019 tournament.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-NCAA-Duke-Wisconsin-Final-Four-Basketball/38ca92b802594e87b426f5b4aca19d08/74/0">AP Photo/David J. Phillip</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Addiction and integrity</h2>
<p>Anti-gambling advocates say what hasn’t changed is the long-term impact on addiction, which is likely to rise in years to come as legal sports betting becomes more widespread. </p>
<p>Asked whether states adopting legalized sports wagering are doing enough to also combat gambling addiction, Keith Whyte, executive director of the
<a href="https://www.ncpgambling.org/">National Council on Problem Gambling</a>, said: “Not really.” He also noted that, while gambling addiction doesn’t seem to have spiked in the past year, the negative effects of sports gambling will show up down the road.</p>
<p>Some states, like New Jersey, adopted the <a href="http://www.ncpgambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Responsible-Gaming-Principles-for-Sports-Gambling-Legislation.pdf">council’s recommendations</a> for minimizing harm from legal gambling, such as dedicated funds to prevent and treat addition and establishing a minimum age, while most have only enacted a few safeguards. </p>
<p>For its part, the NCAA <a href="https://www.apnews.com/66e15b3a43ef49619c57467cecda0b8c">has come out against</a> legalized sports gambling. </p>
<p>“Sports wagering is going to have a dramatic impact on everything we do in college sports,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said <a href="https://apnews.com/7d62e621e8dd4c3bb1edfc54363c40c6?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_Sports">at the group’s national convention in January</a>. “It’s going to threaten the integrity of college sports in many ways unless we are willing to act boldly and strongly.”</p>
<h2>Gamblers win</h2>
<p>But there’s little the NCAA can do about it. More legal sports betting is on its way – though the office pool will presumably still be a no-no. </p>
<p>Joni Comstock, senior vice president of championships at the NCAA, <a href="https://www.apnews.com/66e15b3a43ef49619c57467cecda0b8c">estimates</a> that 30 states could have legal gambling within a couple of years. </p>
<p>As for who’s the favorite of gamblers and the more than 40 million Americans who were expected to fill out brackets, 29 percent apparently picked Duke to win it all. Nobody else was even close.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Affleck does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>About 47 million adults in the US are expected to gamble on March Madness this year. A growing share of the bets will actually be legal.John Affleck, Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1088482019-01-02T10:20:56Z2019-01-02T10:20:56ZWe took a gamble on Premier League betting odds – and showed that football bets should come with a health warning<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250674/original/file-20181214-185261-17r6cj9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/soccer-ball-on-green-glass-white-1112645465?src=L_gUGRfWmcfEWmaeObTopg-5-68">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Please drink responsibly” is a familiar plea to those who might be inclined to consume alcohol, and we are also reminded to “gamble responsibly”, a timely reminder during a busy period <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-footballs-festive-fixture-congestion-is-so-bad-for-injuries-107413">for Premier League football</a>, full of fixtures and plenty of casual fans with time on their hands.</p>
<p>You can make a reasonable judgement about responsible drinking by using the percentage alcohol by volume (ABV) information on the label of whichever bottle has been opened. But how can we determine the strength of a football bet?</p>
<p>In fact, “gambling harm” can also be approximated by a percentage. The “gamblers’ losses” percentage is a measure of the money bet that a gambler will lose in the long term. Short term randomness around this percentage is what makes gambling interesting – but over longer time periods, gamblers will lose this percentage of all the money they bet.</p>
<p>We think most people probably have no idea of what percentage of all money bet is lost across different football bets. So <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/sxbaq">we looked</a> at eight seasons of Premier League betting odds and results using machine learning.</p>
<p>Machine learning allowed us to simulate three potential human betting strategies over long periods of time. One “random” strategy effectively simulated the risks of throwing darts at a set of betting odds. By comparison, a “most-skilled” strategy carefully studied the betting odds and results for three whole seasons before judiciously selecting the best bet it could find for each match. </p>
<p>We also looked at the returns of a strategy that deliberately tried to be as unskilled as possible. The “least-skilled” strategy chose what might be thought of as the worst case scenario for each match. This mirrors the returns of someone who is not merely unlucky, but is unskilled (and who may benefit from more help and advice). Any differences between these three strategies reflect the role of skill in Premier League football betting.</p>
<p>The risks varied based on both the type of bet chosen and the specific betting strategy used. When simulating the returns of a given bet of, say £1, we found that the gamblers’ losses percentage varied by a factor of 54. Using the drinking comparison, this is like the difference between a 1% reduced strength lager and a strong bottle of whisky.</p>
<p>Some of the highest risks came from betting on the correct score, a bet with pretty high odds, which you might have seen the actor Ray Winstone offering on British <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/3uc9s/">television over Christmas</a>. For example, Manchester City to win 3-1, might have odds of 9/1, meaning every £1 bet wins £9 if Manchester City win by that score line.</p>
<p>We found that that just randomly selecting correct score bets would hit you with a strong average loss of 34.3%. But the worse case scenario was a whopping average loss of 58.9%, which came when the least skilled strategy picked very high correct scores (such as the away team winning by four goals to nil). Of course, sometimes bets at high odds pay off. But overall, these figures mean that for every £100 bet, on average the gambler lost £34.30 and £58.90 for their betting strategies.</p>
<p>Luckily there are two tips that gamblers can do to keep their losses within reasonable limits. </p>
<p>The first tip is to select types of bets with relatively low odds. The bookmakers love advertising correct score bets, for example, because these bets offer high odds if gamblers guess the correct score. </p>
<h2>Good odds it’s a bad bet</h2>
<p>But one bet with lower odds is what we call a “home-draw-away” bet, either betting on Manchester City to win, a draw, or the away team to win. Here the random strategy returned average percentage losses of 8.7%, so nearly four times less than randomly choosing correct score bets.</p>
<p>The second tip is to select bets with relatively low odds within a given bet type. Manchester City are usually expected to win by the bookmakers, and at the time of writing, betting £1 on them to win their recent match <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46663366">against Southampton</a> gave a potential win of £1.27 if successful. By comparison, a £1 bet on Southampton to triumph would return £11 if successful. </p>
<p>Many gamblers might get excited by those higher odds on Southampton winning. But across each bet type, bets at low odds had the lowest average losses for gamblers. If a bet has odds that seem too high to be true, it probably is a bad bet on average.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251753/original/file-20181220-103660-88bb3h.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">Warning label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The gambling industry recently announced that it will stop showing gambling advertising pre-watershed, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/13/betting-firms-to-ban-pre-watershed-tv-adverts-during-live-sport-events">starting from summer 2019</a>. So promoting betting odds on TV during the football will soon become a thing of the past. </p>
<p>But the industry is currently spending five times as much on online marketing (£1.2 billion) <a href="https://about.gambleaware.org/media/1857/2018-11-24-gambling-marketing-online-five-times-tv-ad-spend.pdf">as on its total TV advertising spend</a>. This online marketing is largely hidden to anyone who is not targeted to receive these messages.</p>
<p>We believe that the very high differences in product risk across football bets should at least be communicated in some way to consumers. While further research should investigate how best to educate football fans about these different risks, reminders to just “gamble responsibly” won’t cut it. </p>
<p>Consumers need to be told about the risks of football bets with high odds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108848/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Newall was in 2018 included as a named researcher on a grant funded by GambleAware, an independent charity committed to minimizing gambling-related harm.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arman Hassanniakalager 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>Some football bets are 50 times more harmful than others.Arman Hassanniakalager, Lecturer in Finance, University of BathPhilip Newall, Postdoctoral fellow, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/910522018-08-13T10:33:29Z2018-08-13T10:33:29ZDesigned to deceive: How gambling distorts reality and hooks your brain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231111/original/file-20180808-142251-u75psh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=240%2C7%2C4415%2C3437&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The longer they keep you plugged in to a game, the better it is for the house.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Catskills-Casino/676f83651f1f49c19876f7e5db5f90f3/8/0">AP Photo/Seth Wenig</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To call gambling a “game of chance” evokes fun, random luck and a sense of collective engagement. These playful connotations may be part of why almost 80 percent of American adults <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708002900">gamble at some point</a> in their lifetime. When I ask my psychology students why they think people gamble, the most frequent suggestions are for pleasure, money or the thrill.</p>
<p>While these might be reasons why people gamble initially, psychologists don’t definitely know why, for some, gambling stops being an enjoyable diversion and becomes compulsive. What keeps people playing even when it stops being fun? Why stick with games people know are designed for them to lose? Are some people just more unlucky than the rest of us, or simply worse at calculating the odds?</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PGE3iuMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">As an addiction researcher</a> for the past 15 years, I look to the brain to understand the hooks that make gambling so compelling. I’ve found that many are intentionally hidden in how the games are designed. And these hooks work on casual casino-goers just as well as they do on problem gamblers.</p>
<h2>Uncertainty as its own reward in the brain</h2>
<p>One of the hallmarks of gambling is <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/uncertainty-games">its uncertainty</a> – whether it’s the size of a jackpot or the probability of winning at all. And reward uncertainty plays a crucial role in gambling’s attraction.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine">Dopamine</a>, the neurotransmitter the brain releases during enjoyable activities such as eating, sex and drugs, is also released during situations where the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077349">reward is uncertain</a>. In fact dopamine release increases particularly during the moments leading up to a potential reward. This anticipation effect might explain why dopamine release parallels an individual’s levels of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.006">gambling “high” and the severity of his or her gambling addiction</a>. It likely also plays a role in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.09.037">reinforcing the risk-taking behavior</a> seen in gambling. </p>
<p>Studies have shown that the release of dopamine during gambling <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03126.x">occurs in brain areas</a> similar to those activated by taking drugs of abuse. In fact, similar to drugs, repeated exposure to gambling and uncertainty produces <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.163">lasting changes in the human brain</a>. These reward pathways, similar to those seen in individuals suffering from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12242">drug addiction</a>, become hypersensitive. Animal studies suggest that these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-018-0099-4">brain changes due to uncertainty</a> can even enhance gamblers’ cravings and desire for addictive drugs.</p>
<p>Repeated exposure to gambling and uncertainty can even change how you respond to losing. Counterintuitively, in individuals with a gambling problem, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01591.x">losing money comes to trigger</a> the rewarding release of dopamine almost to the same degree that winning does. As a result, in problem gamblers, losing sets off the urge to keep playing, rather than the disappointment that might prompt you to walk away, a phenomenon known as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.014">chasing losses</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231114/original/file-20180808-191013-1u4dsgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All the bells and whistles work to keep you engaged and playing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulf-april-14-slot-machines-62296870">Pavel L Photo and Video/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lights and sounds egg you on</h2>
<p>But gambling is more than just winning and losing. It can be a whole immersive environment with an array of flashing lights and sounds. This is particularly true in a busy casino, but even a game or gambling app on a smartphone includes plenty of audio and visual frills to capture your attention.</p>
<p>But are they just frills? Studies suggest that these lights and sounds become <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.006">more attractive</a> and capable of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.09.027">triggering urges to play</a> when they are paired with reward uncertainty. In particular, win-associated cues – such as jingles that vary in length and size as a function of jackpot size – both <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-013-9391-8">increase excitement and lead gamblers to overestimate</a> how often they are winning. Crucially, they can also keep you <a href="https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.006">gambling longer and encourage you to play faster</a>.</p>
<h2>Feeling like a winner while you’re losing</h2>
<p>Since games of chance are set up so the house always has an advantage, a gambler wins infrequently at best. You might only rarely experience the lights and sounds that come along with hitting a true jackpot. However, the gaming industry may have devised a way to overcome that issue.</p>
<p>Over the last few decades, casinos and game manufacturers significantly upgraded slot machines, retiring the old mechanical arms and reels in favor of electronic versions known as <a href="https://www.casinopedia.org/terms/e/electronic-gaming-machine-egm">electronic gaming machines</a>. These new computerized games and online slots come with more attractive colorful lights and a variety of sounds. They also possess more reels, ushering in a new era of multi-line video slot machines.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231112/original/file-20180808-191044-1iqnmo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rather than just hoping for three cherries to line up in a horizontal row, players can bet on lining up icons on multiple lines going in a variety of directions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Casinos-Inflated-Expectations/55422441810a43f8a06117df2d3e199b/1/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Having multiple lines enables players to place a bunch of bets per spin, often up to 20 or more. Although each individual bet can be small, many players place the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12675">maximum number of bets on each spin</a>. This strategy means a player can win on some lines while losing on others, netting less than the original wager. Even when you “win,” you don’t come out ahead, a phenomenon known as “<a href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/07/losses-disguised-as-wins-slot-machines-and-deception/">losses disguised as wins</a>.” Yet each win, even when it is a loss disguised as a win, comes with the lights and sounds of victory.</p>
<p>The result is that these multi-line slot machines produce <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12675">more enjoyment and are highly preferred by players</a>. Crucially, they tend to make gamblers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-013-9411-8">overestimate how often they’re truly winning</a>. The dramatic increase in the frequency of wins, whether real or fabricated, produces more arousal and activation of reward pathways in the brain, possibly accelerating the rate at which brain changes occur. Multi-line slots also seem to promote the development of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9695-1">“dark flow,” a trance-like state</a> in which players get wholly absorbed in the game, sometimes for hours on end.</p>
<h2>Almost: Near-miss effect and chasing your losses</h2>
<p>The rise of electronic gambling machines also means that rather than being constrained by the physical arrangement of different possible outcomes on each reel, possible outcomes are programmed onto a set of virtual reels. Gaming designers can therefore stack the deck to make certain events occur more frequently than others.</p>
<p>This includes near-misses, where one of the reels stops just short of lining up for a jackpot. These near-miss almost-wins recruit <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031">areas of the brain that usually respond to wins</a>, and increase one’s desire to play more, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.43">especially in problem gamblers</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231115/original/file-20180808-191019-1oja5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The same hooks that work in casinos work in smartphone apps.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bucharest-romania-january-25-2017-close-569219710">Alexandru Nika/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This phenomenon is not confined to slot machines and casinos. Near-misses play an integral part in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9633-7">addictive potential of smartphone games</a> like the very popular “Candy Crush.”</p>
<p>Near-misses are more arousing than losses – despite being more frustrating and significantly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-015-9578-2">less pleasant than missing by a longshot</a>. But crucially, almost winning triggers a more substantial <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031">urge to play</a> than even winning itself. Near-misses seem to be highly motivating and increase player commitment to a game, resulting in individuals <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419232">playing longer than they intended</a>. The size of the dopamine response to a near-miss in fact <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5758-09.2010">correlates with the severity of an individual’s gambling addiction</a>. </p>
<h2>Gambling and its games</h2>
<p>When you engage in recreational gambling, you are not simply playing against the odds, but also battling an enemy trained in the art of deceit and subterfuge. Games of chance have a vested interest in hooking players for longer and letting them eventually walk away with the impression they did better than chance, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9699-x">fostering a false impression of skill</a>.</p>
<p>For many people, these carefully designed outcomes enhance the satisfaction they get from gambling. It may remain easy for them to simply walk away when the chips run out.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231116/original/file-20180808-142251-c0ks6l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Casinos aim to hook players – and sometimes their strategies work all too well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/gambling-addicted-man-glasses-front-online-754693879">Alexander Kirch/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But gambling isn’t only a lighthearted promise of a good time and a possible jackpot. Up to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708002900">2 percent of the U.S. population</a> are problem gamblers, suffering from what’s recently been reclassified <a href="https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/what-is-gambling-disorder">as gambling disorder</a>.</p>
<p>It stands out as one of the few addictions that doesn’t involve consumption of a substance, such as a drug. Like other forms of addiction, gambling disorder is a <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d000/26410235cd37b68079c7ce6da4932a7b4d37.pdf">solitary</a> and <a href="https://consumer.healthday.com/mental-health-information-25/addiction-news-6/risky-gambling-tied-to-social-isolation-678614.html">isolating experience</a>. It’s tied to <a href="https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.v66n0504">growing anxiety</a>, and problem gamblers are at <a href="https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/news-and-research/problem-gamblers-have-increased-risk-of-suicide-personality-disorders/">greater risk of suicide</a>.</p>
<p>For these more susceptible individuals, the game designers’ hooks start to seem more sinister. A solution to life’s problems always feels just one spin away.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91052/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Robinson has previously received funding from the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG). </span></em></p>When you engage in recreational gambling, you’re not simply playing against the odds – you’re battling an enemy trained in the art of deceit and subterfuge who uses human nature against you.Mike Robinson, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Wesleyan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/985072018-06-27T10:47:39Z2018-06-27T10:47:39ZWorld Cup online betting is the highest it’s ever been<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224948/original/file-20180626-112598-8wcp1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The 2018 World Cup inspires new gamblers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTUzMDA1MDY4NywiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTExNDYwOTExOCIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xMTE0NjA5MTE4L2h1Z2UuanBnIiwibSI6MSwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCIzVGgyTEhEMWtJY2wxN1lVV1JYNFQ1ZUFDaDgiXQ%2Fshutterstock_1114609118.jpg&pi=33421636&m=1114609118&src=qI2blJTtWjBhNIh0dlh2bQ-2-98">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sports betting is worth up to <a href="https://bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24354124">£625 billion per year</a>, with 70% of that trade reckoned to come from football. During big sporting competitions, such as the World Cup, even more money is spent gambling than usual. Over the 2018 World Cup, bookmakers are estimated to make a profit of <a href="https://alphasportsbetting.com/sports-betting-tactics/how-much-money-is-bet-on-the-fifa-world-cup">US$36.4 billion</a> (£41.3 billion). And in the UK, the amount of money spent on gambling during the World Cup is expected to more than double from £1 billion in 2014 <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-cup-kicks-off-a-2-5bn-betting-splurge-qgx8prl5m">to £2.5 billion</a> this year. </p>
<p>Sports gambling is being driven by the unlimited availability of online betting and the fact that no physical money is exchanged, making financial transactions seem less real. The vast amount of data that online gambling sites collect also enables them to personalise offers to individual gamblers. Instead, this data should be used to help people gamble responsibly by warning users in real-time that they are exhibiting problematic gambling behaviours.</p>
<p>For many people, gambling isn’t just a <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-just-financial-loss-the-social-impact-of-gambling-cannot-be-underestimated-86256">fun novelty every four years</a>. About <a href="http://gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-behaviour-in-Great-Britain-2015.pdf">430,000 citizens</a> in the UK can be identified as <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-in-100-people-is-a-problem-gambler-but-the-health-service-does-little-to-help-74462">problem gamblers</a>. These individuals have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds online, which has impacted not only the gamblers but also their families. </p>
<p>High profile but infrequent betting events such as the Word Cup exacerbate the issues that problem gamblers face. Seeing others engage in betting, coupled with the advertisements from betting firms, leads problem gamblers to attempt to convince themselves that they do <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X">not have a problem</a>. <a href="http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3911/4f52e150dc123408ba03120afce599727fc6.pdf">Environmental cues</a> can also trigger the urge to gamble in those who have a gambling problem. So, the intensive advertising used by betting firms during the World Cup, along with media coverage of the World Cup in general, may further push problem gamblers towards making harmful decisions.</p>
<h2>Watching your habit</h2>
<p>Online gambling sites have an infinite memory for bets – when made, for how much, regarding what, and so on. This data is a rich source that websites use for tailoring offers and marketing material to fit a gambler’s potential interests. But this personalisation exploits cognitive biases in gamblers and encourages them to increase risk-taking and by extension, gambling.</p>
<p>There is only a fine line between the legitimate marketing and personalisation of content and offers on the one hand and exploitation and manipulation on the other. For example, the tracking of a gambler’s betting pattern means the gambler can be targeted with offers following heavy losses, encouraging them to chase losses even further. </p>
<p>But this same data could also be used to support reductions in problem gambling, either led by gamblers themselves or with the support of a counsellor or software. Such transparency could enhance the image of the gambling industry and make responsible gambling a shared responsibility between gamblers and bookmakers. </p>
<h2>A chance for change</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/project/erogamb/">EROGamb project</a>, funded by <a href="https://about.gambleaware.org/">GambleAware</a> and Bournemouth University, we <a href="https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/2018/05/gambling-operators-to-provide-gambling-behavioural-data-a-call-for-a-policy-change/">advocate a policy change</a> where gambling sites provide gambling behavioural data to gamblers and their surrogates in real-time. </p>
<p>This data would provide an unprecedented opportunity to tackle problem gambling. For example, the data could lead to the app informing gamblers that they are exhibiting problematic gambling patterns. The real-time collection of information such as “the gambler has reached the monthly spending limit” could trigger a message visualising their past betting behaviour and a reminder of a commitment already made. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fixed-odds-betting-terminal-cap-must-be-just-the-start-of-gambling-regulation-96828">Fixed-odds betting terminal cap must be just the start of gambling regulation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/24447/">In our studies</a>, digital addicts, including online gambling addicts, have indicated that having access to such data would act as a wake-up call, raising awareness. Digital media users, in general, like to be in <a href="http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21891/">control of their usage</a> through labels and awareness tools. </p>
<p>Similar facilities have started to exist in mainstream digital media. For example, on Google, it is now possible to <a href="https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190?hl=en">download your data</a> and on Facebook to download your <a href="https://facebook.com/help/1701730696756992">profile data history of interaction</a>, but not currently as real-time streaming of data as actions happen. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224516/original/file-20180623-26570-1fcs6gl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How to retrieve and use gambling-related data for being more in-control of gambling behaviour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The EROGamb Project</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Challenges</h2>
<p>We understand the barriers to implementing this vision. Gambling operators may not have such data readily available and may even rely on third parties to offer certain games. Some also fear that gamblers might share the data with competitor gambling sites, giving away information about marketing practices. But the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gdpr-ten-easy-steps-all-organisations-should-follow-90651">General Data Protection Regulation</a>(GDPR) <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-data-portability/">right to data portability</a> holds that gamblers shall not be prevented from accessing and sharing their data. </p>
<p>Given the advantages, and also the increased demand for transparency, this would eventually become the recommended practice for demonstrating advanced corporate social responsibility and inspiring the trust of the public and clients in the gambling industry. We are preparing a <a href="https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/2018/04/erogamb-workshop-a-charter-for-sharing-data-and-supporting-responsible-gambling/">charter for the gambling industry</a> towards a commitment for that.</p>
<p>The rise of online gambling, combined with the record amount of money being spent on gambling at this year’s World Cup makes this the perfect time to discuss what we can do to prevent and combat gambling addiction. Simply by using data to help people be better aware of their gambling habits, rather than hooking them back into their next bet, gambling sites could make a massive difference. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/spN_bTe5PiY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><em>More evidence-based articles related to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/world-cup-2018-11490?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=WorldCup2018">World Cup</a>:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/world-cup-var-technology-is-transforming-the-beautiful-game-97907?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=WorldCup2018">VAR: technology is transforming the beautiful game</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/china-has-more-fans-at-this-world-cup-than-england-97435?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=WorldCup2018">China has more fans at this World Cup than England</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/world-cup-60-years-on-peles-1958-debut-still-the-greatest-tournament-ever-98194?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=WorldCup2018">Sixty years on Pelé’s 1958 debut still the greatest World Cup ever</a></em></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Raian Ali receives funding from GambleAware through the EROGamb Project: "Empowering Responsible Online Gambling with Predictive, Real-time, Persuasive and Interactive Intervention" <a href="https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/project/erogamb/">https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/project/erogamb/</a> </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emily Arden-Close receives funding from GambleAware through the EROGamb Project "Empowering Responsible Online Gambling with Predictive, Real-time, Persuasive and Interactive Intervention."</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John McAlaney receives funding from GambleAware through the EROGamb Project "Empowering Responsible Online Gambling with Predictive, Real-time, Persuasive and Interactive Intervention.". He is on the Board of Trustees of the Gordon Moody Association. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Phalp receives funding from GambleAware through the EROGamb Project "Empowering Responsible Online Gambling with Predictive, Real-time, Persuasive and Interactive Intervention.</span></em></p>Online gambling collects a huge amount of data. But instead of personalising offers to keep you hooked, real-time data can be used to prevent problematic gambling behaviour.Raian Ali, Associate Professor in Computing and Informatics, Bournemouth UniversityEmily Arden-Close, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Bournemouth UniversityJohn McAlaney, Principal Academic in Psychology, Bournemouth UniversityKeith Phalp, Executive Dean for the Faculty of Science and Technology and Professor of Software Engineering, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/966182018-05-14T22:18:41Z2018-05-14T22:18:41ZMarket for illegal sports betting in US is not really a $150 billion business<p>The Supreme Court on May 14 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/14/what-the-supreme-courts-sports-gambling-decision-means/">struck down</a> a 25-year federal ban on sports betting outside of Nevada. </p>
<p>The big question on many minds – particular state officials and companies like <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/14/mgm-ceo-well-have-sports-betting-in-place-very-quickly-throughout-u-s.html">MGM Resorts</a> and <a href="https://www.legalsportsreport.com/18677/draftkings-hires-head-sportsbook/">DraftKings</a> looking to cash in – is how much money is at stake. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court-sports-betting-new-jersey.html">Many</a> of the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-sports-betting-new-jersey-supreme-court-nfl-1231-20171229-story.html">articles</a> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/muhammadcohen/2018/03/22/bet-on-u-s-supreme-court-sports-wagering-verdict-to-change-the-game-in-asia/#463be628a825">on the decision</a> cite the same <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-taking-up-new-jersey-sports-betting-case/">eye-popping figure</a>: Americans wager an estimated US$150 billion in illegal sports bets every year.</p>
<p>As a <a href="http://businessmacroeconomics.com/">macro economist</a>, I am used to dealing with big numbers. Still, $150 billion struck me as much too high. To put it in perspective, that’s <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/187069/north-american-box-office-gross-revenue-since-1980/">14 times more than Americans spend</a> going to the movies, <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cex/2016/aggregate/age.pdf">twice as much</a> as they put into grooming and feeding their pets and about the same as they pay for fruits, vegetables and dairy products. </p>
<p>The figure comes from the <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/about">American Gaming Association</a>, which represents the U.S. casino industry and works to reduce restrictions on gambling. It says it <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/newsroom/press-releasess/americans-wager-more-46-billion-illegally-super-bowl-52">based this number</a> on a <a href="https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html">1999 government estimate</a> of about $80 billion in illegal sports betting. The group, which describes this as “the most conservative estimate,” then adjusted it to 2017 dollars using GDP growth. </p>
<p>I’m not the first to find fault with these figures. A <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/11/adam_silver_says_there_s_400_billion_per_year_of_illegal_sports_betting.html">2014 article in Slate</a> questioned an even higher estimate, $380 billion, drawn from the same report. An examination of the underlying study showed that such estimates were not based on serious research.</p>
<p>While the figure has no real basis, it does have real impact. Numerous states need more tax revenue. If the potential dollars are big enough, then many states will rush to allow sports betting – as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/14/what-the-supreme-courts-sports-gambling-decision-means/">almost 20 are already doing</a>, including New Jersey, which was behind the lawsuit that resulted in the high court ruling.</p>
<h2>Real-world examples</h2>
<p>As I know from my work in economics, there are better ways to make estimates than pulling numbers out of thin air. </p>
<p>The first thing you do in such cases is look for a real-world example. In this case, data from the U.K., which has allowed sports gambling for decades, with thousands of betting parlors offering odds on everything from <a href="https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40043129">Premier League matches</a> to when <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/7-weirdest-things-you-can-bet-on-2013-7">royal babies are born</a>.</p>
<p>The U.K.’s Gambling Commission tracks betting statistics and <a href="http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/Statistics-and-research/Statistics/Industry-statistics.aspx">issues an annual report</a>. The one released in January shows that Brits placed about 10 billion pounds in bets in the latest fiscal year.</p>
<p>To get a comparable estimate for the U.S., that figure needs to be adjusted by population and currency. The U.K. has only about <a href="https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html">66 million people</a>, compared with <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html">327 million</a> in the U.S. And the pound was worth $1.36 on May 14. </p>
<p>After making both adjustments, this suggests that if people in the U.S. are allowed to make bets at the same rate as in the U.K., the size of the industry would be about $67 billion a year. While enormous, that’s a far cry from $150 billion.</p>
<p>Will legal sports gambling be big business? Yes, but not as big as its proponents want you to believe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many states are pondering making gambling on sports legal after the US Supreme Court overturned a federal ban. But is the industry really worth as much as some say it is?Jay L. Zagorsky, Economist and Research Scientist, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/953602018-04-27T13:12:08Z2018-04-27T13:12:08ZWith the Supreme Court’s pending sports gambling decision, states are already prepping for legalization<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216559/original/file-20180426-175054-fanmwa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A screen shows a baseball game next to various betting lines at the Westgate Superbook in Las Vegas, Nevada.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/World-Series-Odds-Baseball/0f6c8df3a51147e59d5e82c99a931e2d/53/0">John Locher/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The gambling world is waiting with bated breath for the United States Supreme Court decision that could result in an expansion of sports betting. The decision could be announced anytime between today and the end of June.</p>
<p>Since I teach sports betting regulation and gambling law, I’ve been closely watching the developments as well. Although Nevada has had a robust sports betting industry for decades, New Jersey has been at the forefront of the push to legalize sports betting. </p>
<p>In recent years, many other states have prepared for a ruling from the Supreme Court that would overturn the prohibition of sports betting. Even professional sports leagues – which have emerged as the leading opponents of efforts to legalize and regulate sports betting – are looking to cash in. </p>
<h2>How we got here</h2>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment">10th Amendment</a> of the United States Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”</p>
<p>For this reason, states have traditionally overseen and regulated casino gambling. The Nevada Supreme Court specifically recognized, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1977/9301-1.html">in a case</a> involving the infamous Frank Rosenthal (portrayed as Ace Rothstein by Robert De Niro in the movie “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/">Casino</a>”), that gaming is “a matter reserved to the states within the meaning of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” </p>
<p>However, in 1992, responding to concerns about the spread of state-sponsored sports wagering, Congress enacted the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-VI/chapter-178">Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act</a>, also known as the Bradley Act, named after its lead sponsor, then-U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.</p>
<p>The Bradley Act made it unlawful for any governmental entity, such as states, municipalities or Indian tribes, to “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact” any sports betting. In addition, the act prohibited any individual from operating any sort of sports betting enterprise.</p>
<p>However, the Bradley Act exempted four states from the prohibition: Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana. Of these four states, Nevada was – and remains – the only one with full-scale sports wagering. New Jersey was given a one-year window to legalize sports wagering, but the state legislature failed to take action within the allotted time. </p>
<p>Fast forward to 2011. That year, New Jersey government officials decided they wanted to have regulated sports wagering, so the state introduced <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Sports_Betting_Amendment,_Public_Question_1_(2011)">a referendum on a statewide ballot</a> that would amend the state Constitution to permit wagering on college, amateur, and professional sports at Atlantic City casinos and racetracks across the state.</p>
<p>New Jersey voters <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-08/sports/chi-new-jersey-voters-endorse-making-sports-betting-legal-20111108_1_amateur-sports-protection-act-legal-bets-oregon-and-montana">supported the ballot referendum</a>, and in 2012 the New Jersey legislature <a href="https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-ncaa-file-lawsuit-to-stop-sports-betting-in-new-jersey-092914">passed a law</a> to legalize sports wagering. </p>
<p>However, the major professional and college sports leagues – NCAA, NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL – opposed the legislation and <a href="https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-ncaa-file-lawsuit-to-stop-sports-betting-in-new-jersey-092914">filed a lawsuit</a> to stop New Jersey from regulating sports wagering. </p>
<p>In response, New Jersey claimed that the Bradley Act was unconstitutional because it violated the state’s 10th Amendment rights to regulate gambling in the form of sports wagering. In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20130917115">ruled in favor of the leagues</a>, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case. The Bradley Act remained intact. </p>
<p>New Jersey pressed on. Having lost on the argument that legalizing sports wagering is equivalent to “authorizing” it under the existing Bradley Act, New Jersey got creative and decided to simply repeal the state’s criminal laws and regulations that prohibited sports book operations in casinos and racetracks. </p>
<p>Once again, the sports leagues sued to stop New Jersey. In response, New Jersey <a href="http://thesportsesquires.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Brief-of-Appellees-NCAA-v.-Christie-Feb-13-2015.pdf">argued</a> that it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment if the state were prevented from repealing an existing law. Again, the lower courts and Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the leagues – but for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would weigh in.</p>
<h2>Prepping for the inevitable?</h2>
<p>Now we await the decision. </p>
<p>It’s important to note that this case is about more than sports betting, which is simply the subject matter before the Supreme Court. It has more to do with states’ rights, and the decision has the potential to affect other areas of dispute, from marijuana legalization to the ability of cities to protect undocumented immigrants to gun control. </p>
<p>There are several possible outcomes. The U.S. Supreme Court could decide in favor of the leagues, which would mean New Jersey – and any other nonexempted state – would remain prohibited from allowing any sports wagering.</p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, the court could declare the Bradley Act unconstitutional, and states and Indian tribes would no longer be blocked from authorizing and regulating full-scale sports wagering.</p>
<p>Another possibility is that the court sides with New Jersey and allows the state to decriminalize sports wagering – on an either limited basis (in casinos and racetracks) or entirely – but not regulate it. </p>
<p>Finally, the Supreme Court could strike the prohibition that prevents states and tribes from permitting sports wagering, but keep the restriction so that individuals cannot conduct legal sports wagering. If this were to happen, sports betting could be permitted by states, but individuals would be prevented from operating their own sports betting business. </p>
<p>About 20 states <a href="http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19740480/gambling-sports-betting-bill-tracker-all-50-states">are already preparing for the event</a> that the Bradley Act gets overturned and are gearing up to pass laws (or have already done so) that will give them the ability to offer regulated sports wagering.</p>
<p><iframe id="jkvzO" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jkvzO/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, there are many unknowns and issues that will need to be addressed: Will state-sponsored sports wagering be run by state lotteries or private enterprise such as casinos or racetracks? Will amendments be needed to permit Indian tribes to offer sports wagering? And will information on sporting events for wagering purposes – such as scores, outcomes or game statistics – be restricted to data generated from the leagues? </p>
<p>There are already disagreements over something called an “<a href="https://www.legalsportsreport.com/integrity-fee/">integrity fee</a>.” In states where sports betting will likely become legal, leagues have been pressing to receive 1 percent of all amounts wagered on a sporting event. </p>
<p>In Nevada – where legal, regulated sports wagering has taken place since 1949 – such a fee has never been in place. Instead, casinos simply pay the state <a href="http://gaming.unlv.edu/abstract/nv_main.html">up to 6.75 percent</a> in a tax on revenues (which is the same tax paid by casinos on other forms of gambling), in addition to a federal tax of 0.25 percent on amounts wagered. States looking to legalize sports betting are proposing varied rates of taxation.</p>
<p>So how might an integrity fee affect sports books?</p>
<p>If we look at the most recent Super Bowl, <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/betting/super-bowl-lii-generates-record-shattering-betting-handle-of-158-6m/">over US$158 million</a> was wagered in Nevada on the game. If there was a mandated integrity fee, this means that the NFL would have received $1.58 million from Nevada sports books. </p>
<p>But in the case of the Super Bowl, Nevada sports books <a href="http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12742">only made $1.17 million</a>, or 0.7 percent of the total amount wagered. So that means that if Nevada sports books had to pay an integrity fee on the Super Bowl, it would have lost money even before having to pay state and federal taxes, rent, employee salaries and the other costs of operating a sports book. From the industry’s perspective, sports wagering isn’t always as lucrative as it’s often portrayed to be. </p>
<p>For this reason, states must be educated and informed when considering whether to legalize sports betting. If they think they’ll get a tax windfall for schools and roads, they could be sorely mistaken – especially if the leagues end up getting a cut.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Roberts works for UNLV International Center for Gaming Regulation, William S. Boyd School of Law, and S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah.
Jennifer Roberts owns her own boutique law firm, Roberts Gaming Law, Ltd., and is a Director of Nevada Esports Alliance, Futuro Academy charter school, and Clark County Bar Association.</span></em></p>But those hoping for a boon in tax revenues could be sorely mistaken: Sports betting isn’t as lucrative as it’s often portrayed to be.Jennifer Roberts, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/900472018-01-18T13:40:52Z2018-01-18T13:40:52ZWhat are the odds of Trump surviving 2018 in office? An expert crunches the numbers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202303/original/file-20180117-53324-3jf0dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/las-vegas-nv-february-22-republican-386628055?src=SvwuqpTDBHSiK-H4KQaxaQ-1-22">Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump has been under constant fire from critics since he began his campaign in the summer of 2015, and his presidency has so far been perhaps the most chaotic and bizarre in recent decades. But as he approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, the pressure is only getting more intense. </p>
<p>First came the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-is-an-unfit-president-when-will-his-backers-run-out-of-uses-for-him-89675">revelations</a> in the bestseller Fire and Fury, which reports on various White House aides’ concerns about the president’s mental capacity. Then came Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16862632/trump-russia-collusion-probe-investigation-mueller">request to question Trump</a> about the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia, and his decision to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bannon-plans-cooperate-special-counsel-russia-probe-source-says-n838271">subpoena</a> the president’s ostracised former ally, Steve Bannon.</p>
<p>So as Trump prepares to celebrate a year since his inauguration, what are the chances he’ll still be president when 2018 is over?</p>
<p>There are plenty of guesses and estimates out there, informed and otherwise. Bannon for one is quoted in Fire and Fury as saying Trump only has a 33.3% chance of making it to the end of his term in January 2021. But while many experts and insiders have opinions on the matter, when it comes to forecasting future events, betting and prediction markets have been shown to be <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/for.1091/full">rather more reliable</a>.</p>
<p>A prediction market is a simple financial market that allows everyone to bet on an uncertain future outcome. The <a href="https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5367/Will-Donald-Trump-be-president-at-year-end-2018#data">market most interesting</a> for us asks: “Will Donald Trump be president at year-end 2018?” The yes-asset will pay 100 cents if Trump is still in office at midnight December 31, 2018, and 0 cents if he is not. Because an asset is worth at most 100 cents and at least 0 cents, the asset price is between 0 and 100 – just like a probability. </p>
<p>Since anyone can trade in these markets and adjust the prices, prediction markets have been characterised as a market-based form of the wisdom of the crowd. If the crowd thinks the asset is underpriced – that is, that the implied probability is too low – then people can buy the asset at an expected profit and thereby adjust the price upwards. If the asset is seen as overpriced, then traders can sell to bring the price down.</p>
<p>And indeed, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2015.11.002">research shows</a> that the prices in these markets are a good predictor of the probabilities. Whenever the asset price is 60 cents, then in 60% of the cases the underlying outcome does in fact happen. If the price is 70 cents, then the underlying outcome happens in 70% of the cases, and so on. That means prices are “well calibrated”; on average, they correspond to probabilities.</p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02561.x">Another study</a> finds that assets set to expire more than half a year in the future can exhibit slight biases. Prices above 50 cents tend to be slightly larger than the true probabilities – so looking at the odds on Trump’s future, it’s important to regard the prices as optimistic estimates.</p>
<h2>What the crowd says</h2>
<p>Currently, the yes-asset trades at 77 cents, implying a 77% or less probability that Trump survives 2018 in office. So the market thinks that while the threats to his presidency are many – the Mueller investigation, rumours of early stage dementia, former staffers with axes to grind – Trump is considerably more likely to survive than be ousted. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=224&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=224&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=224&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202429/original/file-20180118-158550-1iqxq8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chances of Trump staying in office in 2018 (90 day price chart).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">https://www.predictit.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Still, of the 57 US presidential terms served prior to Trump, only nine ended prematurely, meaning 84% of terms were fulfilled. The market expectation of Trump making it through the next year (not even the entire term) is therefore significantly below this historical average.</p>
<p>Another market asks: <a href="https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6894/Will-Donald-Trump-be-president-at-year-end-2019#data">Will Trump be president at year-end 2019</a>? Certainly the probability must be lower here, since Trump cannot resume office in 2019 if ousted in 2018. And indeed, the yes-asset in this market is currently trading at 62 cents, indicating only a 62% probability or less that Trump survives the next two years in office.</p>
<p>But despite the shockwaves generated by Fire and Fury, the prices in both markets have not changed much in the ensuing weeks. Indeed, if anything, they went slightly up around the book’s release, only to revert again a few days later. It seems the markets may have considered the book’s “revelations” just another episode of Trump melodrama. </p>
<p>However, while the odds didn’t change much, the trading volume (i.e. the number of assets bought and sold) started to explode on January 1, around the time newspapers first started discussing the book. These numbers indicate that, while the book did create a lot of interest, it did not considerably affect people’s estimation of Trump’s chances of staying in office.</p>
<p>The last time we saw such large trading numbers on these markets was on December 1, 2017 – the day Michael Flynn (Trump’s former National Security Advisor) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/trumps-ex-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-charged-with-lying-to-fbi">pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI</a> in its Russia investigation. With new twists in the administration’s various scandals coming thick and fast, it seems safe to say there are other spikes to come – but whether they will shift the odds is another matter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christoph Siemroth received funding from the German Research Foundation (SFB 884). </span></em></p>Never mind three more years – some people think just one might be a tall order.Christoph Siemroth, Lecturer in Economics, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/901302018-01-17T12:24:13Z2018-01-17T12:24:13ZHow to avoid a sucker bet – with a little help from maths<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202007/original/file-20180116-53302-1lsj625.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Friend in Need (1903).</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AA_Friend_in_Need_1903_C.M.Coolidge.jpg">Cassius Marcellus Coolidge</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sitting in a bar, you start chatting to a man who issues you a challenge. He hands you five red and two black cards. After shuffling, you lay them on the bar, face down. He bets you that you cannot turn over three red cards. And to help you, he explains the odds.</p>
<p>When you draw the first card, the odds are 5-2 (five red cards, two black cards) in favour of picking a red card. The second draw is 4-2 (or 2-1) and the third draw is 3-2. Each time you draw a card the odds appear to be in your favour, in that you have more chance of drawing a red card than a black card. So, do you accept the bet?</p>
<p>If you answered yes, perhaps it’s time for you to go over your maths. It’s a foolish bet. The odds given above are only for a perfect draw. The real odds of you being able to carry out this feat are actually 5-2 against you. That is, for every seven times you play, you’ll lose five times.</p>
<h2>Odds against you</h2>
<p>This type of bet is often called a proposition bet, which is defined as a wager on something that seems like a good idea, but for which the odds are actually against you, often very much against you, perhaps even making it impossible for you to win.</p>
<p>Let’s assume that you took the bet and, almost inevitably, lost money. But this is just for fun, right? So your new “friend” suggests a way that you can get your money back. He takes two more red cards and hands them to you, so you now have seven red cards and two black cards. You shuffle the nine cards and lay them out, face down, in a three by three grid. He bets you even money that you can’t pick out a straight line (vertical, horizontal or diagonal) that has only red cards.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/201956/original/file-20180115-101495-69xi0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nine Card Hustle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Graham Kendall created image</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Intuitively, this might sound like a better bet and the odds are actually evens if the two black cards are next to each other in a corner (see image). In total there are eight lines to choose from and four contain only red cards, and four contain a black card. But that is as good as it gets.</p>
<p>If the black cards are in opposite corners then you can only win by choosing the centre horizontal or vertical row so the odds are 6-2 (or 3-1) against you winning. Every other layout gives you three winning lines and five losing lines. This bet only has 12 ways of succeeding, against 22 ways of you losing. Hardly an even-chance bet.</p>
<h2>Have another go</h2>
<p>Try to evaluate the odds for this proposition bet.</p>
<p>You shuffle a pack of cards and cut it into three piles. You are offered even money that one of the cards on top of the piles will be a picture card (a jack, queen or king). That is, if a picture card shows up, you lose. Do you think this is a good bet?</p>
<p>One way of reasoning is that there are only 12 losing cards against 40 winning cards, so the odds look better than evens? But this is the wrong way of looking at it. It is really what’s known as a <a href="https://mathigon.org/world/Combinatorics">combinatorics</a> problem. We should also realise that we are just choosing three cards at random.</p>
<p>There are 22,100 ways of choosing three cards from a 52 card deck. Of these, 12,220 will contain at least one picture card – so you lose – meaning that 9,880 will not contain a picture card – when you win. If you translate this to odds, you will lose fives times out of every nine times you play (5-4 against you). The even chance bet you have been offered is not the good value that you thought it was and you will lose money if you play a few times.</p>
<h2>A Final Example</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202011/original/file-20180116-53324-1w4i08x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coin Toss.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ICMA Photos</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We can all agree that you have a 50/50 chance of guessing heads or tails in a coin toss. But if you toss the coin ten times, would you expect to see five heads and five tails? If you were offered odds of 2-1 to try this, would you take the bet? You’d be a sucker if you did.</p>
<p>Five heads and five tails will occur more often than any other combination, but there are many other ways that ten flips of a coin can land. In fact, the bet is 5-2 against you.</p>
<p>Another name for a proposition bet is the “sucker” bet, and there is no surprise who the sucker is. But don’t feel too bad. We are all generally very poor at evaluating true odds. A famous example is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-monty-hall-problem-going-with-your-gut-will-get-your-goat-14195">Monty Hall Problem</a>. Even mathematicians could not agree on the right answer to this seemingly simple problem.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4Lb-6rxZxx0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Monty Hall Problem - Numberphile.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We have focused on bets where it is difficult, especially when under the pressure of deciding whether to bet or not, to calculate the true odds. But there are many <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/propbetonly">other proposition bets</a> that do not rely on calculating odds. And there are many other sucker bets, with probably the most famous being the Three Card Monty.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YnXUe3wV-4M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Three Card Monty.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If faced with this type of bet, what is the best thing you can do? I’d suggest you simply walk away.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90130/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Kendall 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>With a proposition bet, the odds are always against you.Graham Kendall, Professor of Computer Science and Provost/CEO/PVC, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/792372017-06-10T16:50:51Z2017-06-10T16:50:51ZReport card: how well did UK election forecasters perform this time?<p>When Theresa May announced on April 18 that she would call a snap general election, most commentators viewed the precise outcome of the vote as little more than a formality. The Conservatives were sailing more than 20% ahead of the Labour party in a number of opinion polls, and most expected them to be swept back into power with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/snap-election-a-win-win-for-theresa-may-shell-crush-labour-and-make-brexit-a-little-easier-76362">hefty majority</a>.</p>
<p>Even after a campaign blighted by manifesto problems and two terrorist attacks, the Conservatives were by election day still comfortably ahead in most polls and in the betting markets. According to the spread betting markets, they were heading for an overall majority north of 70 seats, while a number of forecasting methodologies projected that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour could end up with fewer than 210. </p>
<p>In particular, an <a href="https://betting.betfair.com/politics/uk-politics/general-election-2017-final-predictions-070617-171.html">analysis</a> of the favourite in each of the seats traded on the <a href="http://betfairpredicts.com/">Betfair market</a> gave the Tories 366 seats and Labour 208. The <a href="http://predictwise.com/">Predictwise</a> betting aggregation site gave the Conservatives an 81% chance of securing an overall majority of seats, in line with the large sums of money trading on the Betfair exchange. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6154/Will-the-Conservatives-win-329-or-fewer-seats-in-the-2017-UK-snap-election#data">PredictIt</a> prediction market, meanwhile, estimated just a 15% chance that the Tories would secure 329 or fewer seats in the House of Commons (with 326 technically required for a majority), while the <a href="https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics">Oddschecker</a> odds comparison site rated a “hung parliament” result an <a href="https://archive.is/vbSEk">11/2 chance</a> (an implied probability of 15.4%). Only the <a href="http://www.almanis.com/">Almanis</a> crowd forecasting platform expressed any real doubt, putting the chance of a Conservative overall majority at a relatively paltry 62%.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results">In reality</a>, the Conservative party lost more than a dozen seats net, ending up with 318 – eight short of a majority. Labour secured 262 seats, the Scottish National party 35, and the Liberal Democrats 12. Their projected vote shares are 42.4%, 40%, 3% and 7.9% respectively.</p>
<p>So did the opinion polls do any better than the betting markets? With the odd exception, no. </p>
<h2>Out of the ballpark</h2>
<p>In their final published polls, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/tories-on-12-point-lead-over-labour-in-final-pre-election-poll">ICM</a> put the Tories on 46%, up 12% on Labour. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/politics/election-poll-latest-tory-win-results-corbyn-theresa-may-a7777781.html">ComRes</a> predicted the Tories would score 44% with a 10-point lead. <a href="http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/herald-bmg-research-final-voting-intention-poll-gives-tories-13-lead/">BMG Research</a> was even further out, putting the Conservatives on 46% and a full 13% clear of Labour. <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/07/two-methods-one-commitment-yougovs-polling-and-mod/">YouGov</a> put the Tories seven points clear of Labour (though their constituency-level model did a lot better), as did <a href="http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-4th-june-2017/">Opinium</a>; <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/ipsos-mori-final-election-poll-2017?language_content_entity=en-uk">Ipsos MORI</a> and <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/">Panelbase</a> had them eight points clear on 44%.</p>
<p>Other polls were at least in the ballpark. Kantar Public put the Tories 5% ahead of Labour, and SurveyMonkey (for the Sun) called the gap at 4%. <a href="http://survation.com/conservative-lead-labour-dropped-16-points-month-whats-going/">Survation</a>, the firm closest to the final result in their unpublished 2015 poll, this time put the Conservatives on 42% and Labour on 40%, very close to the actual result. Qriously (for <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/election-polls-labour-conservative-winner">Wired</a>)was the only pollster to put Labour ahead, by three points.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4YDQWXHOlcM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>According to the <a href="http://electionforecast.co.uk/">2017 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast</a> polling model, the Conservatives were heading for 366 seats, Labour 207, and the Liberal Democrats seven. Allowing for statistical uncertainty, the projection was of an “almost certain” overall majority for the Conservatives. The probability of a hung parliament was put at just 3%. All misses – though that doesn’t necessarily reflect on the model, which after all can only be as good as the polls fed into it.</p>
<p>Many others were wrong, too. The 2017 <a href="https://electionsetc.com/">General Election Combined Forecast</a>, which aggregates betting markets and polling models, forecast a Conservative majority of 66 seats. Other “expert” forecasts came from <a href="https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/872692409091723264">Britain Elects</a> (Tories 356 seats, Labour 219 seats), <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/06/estimated-conservative-majority-rises-final-ashcroft-model-update/">Ashcroft</a> (363, 217), <a href="http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html">Electoral Calculus</a> (358, 218), <a href="https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/872578720866992128">Matt Singh</a> (374, 207), <a href="https://marriott-stats.com/nigels-blog/uk-general-election-2017-forecast-1-latest-prediction/">Nigel Marriott</a> (375, 202), <a href="https://twitter.com/election_data/status/872509420336447491">Election Data</a> (387, 186), <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-win-election-2017-majority-local-elections-result-analysis-a7720771.html">Michael Thrasher</a> (349, 215), <a href="http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2017/05/07/general-election-2017-seat-by-seat-predictions-final-totals-we-re-heading-for-a-conservative-majority-of-130ish">Iain Dale</a> (392, 163) and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/06/can-people-rather-than-pollsters-accurately-predict-thursdays-u-k-election/?utm_term=.07ec4382bf8b">Andreas Murr and his colleagues</a> (361, 236).</p>
<p>So what went wrong?</p>
<h2>A moving target</h2>
<p>In the wake of the 2015 election, the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s victory, forecasters are getting used to fielding that question. But the answer isn’t that difficult: the problem is in quantifying the key factor in the common forecasting meltdown in advance. That factor is turnout, and notably relative turnout by different demographics.</p>
<p>In the Brexit referendum and <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/">2016 US presidential election</a>, turnout by <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-new-eur-referendum-bbc-analysis-age-race-educational-qualification_uk_58986ffce4b0a1dcbd02faf7">poorer and less educated voters</a>, especially outside urban areas, hit unprecedentedly high levels, as people who had never voted before (and may never vote again) came out in droves. In both cases, forecasters’ pre-vote turnout models had predicted that these voters wouldn’t show up in nearly the numbers they did. </p>
<p>In the 2017 election, it was <a href="https://theconversation.com/surge-in-young-voters-is-the-first-sign-of-a-return-to-proud-working-class-politics-79218">turnout among the young</a> in particular that rocketed. This time the factor was <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-pollsters-put-their-methods-to-the-test-and-turnout-is-the-key-78778">widely expected to matter</a>, and indeed get-out-the-vote campaigns aimed at the young were based on it. But most polling models failed to properly account for it, and that meant their predictions were wrong. </p>
<p>Polling is a moving target, and the spoils go to those who are most adept at taking and changing aim. So will the lesson be learned for next time? Possibly. But next time, under-25s might not turn out in anything like the same numbers – or a different demographic altogether might surprise everyone. We might not have long to wait to find out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79237/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leighton Vaughan Williams 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>Hitting a moving target is hard, and young people don’t always do what’s expected.Leighton Vaughan Williams, Professor of Economics and Finance and Director, Betting Research Unit & Political Forecasting Unit, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/737782017-02-28T13:03:16Z2017-02-28T13:03:16ZOscars fiasco a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ foul up? You wouldn’t bet on it<p>The 2017 Oscars will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/oscars-best-picture-blunder-drowned-out-an-overwhelmingly-political-ceremony-how-apt-73696">remembered for all the wrong reasons</a>. The finale should have been the award of Best Picture but, when La La Land was mistakenly announced as the winner, it was only halfway through their acceptance speech that the mistake was recognised. The speech was abruptly stopped and Moonlight was announced as the actual winner.</p>
<p>No doubt, this is a matter for extreme embarrassment for PwC, the accountants who are responsible for counting the Oscar votes for the past 83 years. I suspect that it is especially embarrassing for the two partners that look after the counting of the votes and, importantly, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38923750">safeguard the envelopes</a>.</p>
<p>This mistake is likely to be put down to human error and I am sure that we all feel sorry for the individuals involved. But what are the chances of a mistake like this happening?</p>
<h2>Long shots</h2>
<p>At the start of the 2015-2016 football season, Ladbrokes were offering odds of 5,000-1 that Leicester City would win the Premier League. If you know anything about the betting industry you will recognise that these are very high odds, certainly far higher than anything that the betting industry would envisage happening.</p>
<p>To put this into context, when Leicester won the premier league, the Daily Mirror <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/11-things-were-officially-more-7320326">published an article</a> that listed 11 other bets that had shorter odds than Leicester winning the premiership. A few examples are given here:</p>
<ul>
<li>Arsenal to sack Arsene Wenger and install Piers Morgan as boss: 2,500-1</li>
<li>David Cameron to replace Tim Sherwood as Aston Villa manager: 2,500-1</li>
<li>Sir Alex Ferguson to win Strictly Come Dancing: 1,000-1</li>
<li>Andy Murray to name his first born Novak: 500-1</li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158698/original/image-20170228-29924-jcxfkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Has anyone seen his quickstep?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daily Mirror</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36138413/10-things-bookies-thought-more-likely-than-leicester-winning-the-premier-league">had a similar article</a> which gave odds of 500-1 that the Queen would have a Christmas number one in the pop charts, Kate and William would have triplets (1,000-1), Kim Kardashian would be the US president (2,000-1) and the Loch Ness monster would be found (500-1).</p>
<p>The BBC also reported that the odds of Elvis being found alive in 2016, bearing in mind that he died (or at least <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0816.html">he was reported to have died</a>) in 1977, was 2,000-1. According to the bookmakers the chances of Elvis being found alive, 39 years after his death, was more likely than Leicester winning the premier league. Indeed, all of the items listed above were felt more likely to happen than Leicester winning the premiership.</p>
<h2>Red faces</h2>
<p>All this begs the question, what were the chances of the mistake happening at the Oscars on Sunday evening? There are a number of ways that we could calculate this.</p>
<p>The easiest would be to go to the bookmakers and ask them to give you the odds. You are likely to get quite short odds. I would not expect bookmakers to offer anything like 5,000-1, or even 2,000-1. This is because it could easily happen, as evidenced by the events on Sunday evening and the calling of the wrong Miss Universe winner in 2015. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"836159607034810368"}"></div></p>
<p>If you look at the examples given above, most people would consider them virtually impossible. So, why offer long odds with the risk that this exposes the bookmaker to, when the event could actually happen?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158699/original/image-20170228-29917-g1oyr0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=662&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pie regret.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Sun</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is also a risk of manipulation. The recent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/feb/22/gambling-wayne-shaw-sutton-united-pie">Pie-Gate</a> incident – in which a football player was forced to resign after being seen eating a pie on the sidelines and for which a bookmaker had offered odds of 8-1 – is currently under investigation. </p>
<p>When it comes to the Oscars, there may also be concerns about how the bet would be settled. Does it count if the declaration is in jest (which could be manipulated), does the mistake have to be made by the auditors (PwC) or is it enough for the host to make a mistake, even if the paperwork is in order?</p>
<p>I am not a bookmaker but I would be surprised if you could get odds of more than 100-1 against the Oscar mistake – and probably a lot less now.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158697/original/image-20170228-29924-2sjps6.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">500-1? Now those are good odds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ad Meskens</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If you want to make your own judgement, you could look at various odds and decide where the Oscar announcement fits. I would argue that there is less chance of finding the Loch Ness monster than the error that occurred on Sunday. Therefore, the odds would be shorter than 500-1. You can continue picking bets until you find something that in your view – which is important, as the betting industry depends on differing views – is equally likely to happen. I would not be surprised if you ended up with something that was even lower then 100-1.</p>
<p>A further way is to try and analyse the likelihood of making such a mistake. The press is reporting that this is the biggest mistake in Oscar history. We could take the view that something like this would inevitably happen, given that PwC have been managing this process for 83 years. It was only a matter of time.</p>
<p>Doing an analysis that everybody agrees with would be difficult, as it includes so many unknown factors, but the probability is certainly not close to zero.</p>
<p>So, despite the press coverage that resulted, the incredulity that it could happen and the fact that it actually did are a little surprising. It was going to happen at some time, it was just a matter of when.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Kendall 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>There were red faces all round after the wrong film was given the award for Best Picture. But stranger things have happened.Graham Kendall, Professor of Computer Science and Provost/CEO/PVC, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731912017-02-21T19:13:50Z2017-02-21T19:13:50ZHow predictable are the Oscars? More than you might think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157638/original/image-20170221-18646-1b5wvaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If the bookies are right - and they usually are - La La Land and Emma Stone will be dancing home from the Oscars. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Summit Entertainment</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week, most of the major figures in film-making will gather in Hollywood for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_Awards">89th annual Oscars ceremony</a>. You can bank on seeing a few <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/inside-the-fight-against-sexism-on-the-oscars-red-carpet-de6513a572d0#.33brbyxt4">painfully inane red carpet interviews</a>, several <a href="http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a33286/oscars-2015-thank-yous/">fawning acceptance speeches</a> and some <a href="http://www.indiewire.com/2015/02/5-terrible-oscar-hosts-and-their-worst-jokes-64847/">jokes that fall flat</a>. In all likelihood, there will be one more certainty on the night – an award or two the logic of which <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/what-to-watch/oscars-biggest-shocks-snubs-controversy/">will be questioned for years to come</a>.</p>
<p>It’s now over a decade since race-relations melodrama <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/">Crash</a> pipped <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Brokeback Mountain</a> to the 2006 Best Picture award and it still leads most lists as <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/130381/crash-truly-worst-best-picture">one of history’s least explicable choices</a>. But despite the occasional curve ball, the Oscars are actually remarkably predictable - if you look in the right place for information. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157641/original/image-20170221-18627-1bbuf3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brokeback Mountain’s loss to Crash in 2006 was considered a major upset.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Focus Features</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>You’re just so predictable</h2>
<p>If you want to know who’s going to win the awards, your best bet is the bookmakers - especially if you leave it late enough. By the time the ceremony rolls around (<a href="https://onlyoscar.wordpress.com/the-road-to-2016-awards-season-calendar/">after the Golden Globes, BAFTAs and Screen Actors Guild Awards</a> have been and gone) the betting agencies generally have a great handle on who the Academy will recognise.</p>
<p>For example, since 2004, the bookmakers’ favourite has won Best Actor every year apart from one (in 2009, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oscars-penn-idUSTRE51M1P920090223">Sean Penn was narrow second favourite but won for Milk</a>.) Over the same period, only two Best Actress favourites have missed out on the Oscar, and both of those winners were second favourites. </p>
<p>In fact, across the six main categories - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress – you have to go back a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oscars-swinton-idUSN2464274720080225">full nine years to find the last time an award was not won by the favourite or second favourite</a>.</p>
<p>Much of the perception that the Academy makes unpredictable decisions is simply people forgetting what popular opinion was at the time. Looking back at the legendary “upset” win of Crash in 2006, it was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4769588.stm">actually still second favourite</a>. It also had a lot of momentum in the public’s eyes, with its odds shifting from a huge A$9 to just A$2.50 in the days before the ceremony. </p>
<p>You can see this effect in the chart below. The data were collected from a variety of sources as close to the awards ceremony as possible for each year. Across the six major categories since 2004, over 82% of the awards have gone to the bookmakers’ favourite. When there’s a red hot (A$1.20 or below) favourite, the awards have been even more predictable. In the last 13 years, no such heavily-favoured nominee has ever failed to take home the award in one of these categories.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-227" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/227/a14f914eb8c7f4de5562ba6d96f80a7b62c6d526/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>This is a remarkable run of predictability. By comparison, looking at Australia’s major sporting leagues, even contests with A$1.20 or below favourites are much more uncertain. Over the past four years, around 11% of heavily-favoured AFL games have ended in upsets. In the NRL, the rate is even higher at almost 28%. In this context, the Oscars seem to be a relative “sure thing”.</p>
<p>The Oscars are chosen by more than 6,000 voting members of the 17 branches of the <a href="http://www.oscars.org/oscars/voting">Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences</a>. Why are they so predictable? Bookmakers derive their odds from public opinion - where people are putting their money. Perhaps the Oscars are so certain because <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/sag-nominations-predict-oscar-nods-article-1.2458638">previous awards tip off the public</a>, or maybe people are good at sensing broader public opinion. Perhaps also, there’s a good old-fashioned <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscar-voters-brutally-honest-ballot-422546">Oscar voter leaking their ballot</a> to influence the odds.</p>
<p>You can figure out approximately how likely the bookmakers are rating a nominee to win by doing the following calculation: A$1/odds x 100%. For example, with odds of A$2.50, 2006 Best Picture Crash was thought to have about a 40% chance of success.</p>
<p>Over the period of this dataset the biggest upset was Tilda Swinton’s Best Supporting Actress win for 2008’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465538/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Michael Clayton</a>. The bookmakers thought she had a below 10% chance of winning (with odds set at A$11). </p>
<h2>Why everyone else gets it wrong</h2>
<p>What’s even more remarkable about the predictability of the Oscars is the number of people who overthink things and get it wrong.</p>
<p>Last year, Nate Silver’s data science site, FiveThirtyEight collated <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/oscars-predictions-2016/">nine different mathematical models</a> which crunched available data to produce predictions of the Oscar winners. </p>
<p>Some of these models were by amateur data scientists (albeit <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-we-need-to-know-to-predict-the-oscars/">amateurs with PhDs</a> or <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-the-internet-predict-the-oscars/">with Harvard degrees</a>) and others by professionals, including teams at Ernst and Young, at predictive analytics operation Solution by Simulation, and at FiveThirtyEight itself. </p>
<p>Each model used different datasets – some from Twitter mentions, others from box office performance and others from themes of historical winners or recent film reviews.</p>
<p>So how did these mathematical models do…? Well, overall, their performance could only be described as miserable. Of 48 predictions made across the main six categories <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-watches-the-oscars/">only 50% of these were correct</a>. Some of them even missed absolute certainties such as <a href="http://observer.com/2016/02/11-hilarious-memes-of-leonardo-dicaprio-struggling-to-win-an-oscar/">Leonardo DiCaprio</a> (A$1.01 or 99% to win) and <a href="http://oscar.go.com/news/winners/brie-larson-is-2016-oscar-winner-for-best-actress">Brie Larson</a> (A$1.04 or 96% to win).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157642/original/image-20170221-18627-1751d89.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Viola Davis, a good bet for Best Supporting Actress in Fences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paramount Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why did these models perform so poorly? You’ve probably heard the term <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data">“big data”</a> and the idea that <a href="https://www.naij.com/1076973-trump-clinton-how-big-data-scientists-helped-trump-win-election.html">large datasets can be searched for patterns that allow us to predict the future</a>. While nobody can ever quite define what “big” means, in this context, the Oscar datasets are certainly not “big”. </p>
<p>One datapoint per category per year for less than a century is not much to overcome any other randomness or unpredictability in the system. For example, there are often short-term trends in the tastes of Oscar voters.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.filmsite.org/oscars60.html">1960s, four musicals won Best Picture</a>. The <a href="http://www.filmsite.org/oscars80.html">1980s seemed to favour films dealing with colonialism and its aftermath</a>. Around the turn of the millennium, the Academy lauded safe, uncontroversial box office hits. From the point of calibrating a mathematical model, though, by the time a popular trend has influenced the model, tastes have likely already moved on.</p>
<h2>Spoiler alert</h2>
<p>This year in the main six categories, there are <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com.au/awards/oscars">five short-priced (A$1.20 or below) favourites</a>. As I’ve shown above, it’s well over a decade since any such favourites left empty-handed. </p>
<p>If history repeats itself, it seems safe to assume that the cast and crew of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/01/24/oscar-nominations-2017-live-full-list/">La La Land</a> might just skip, twirl and dance away from Hollywood Boulevard with a little bit more gold for their mantelpieces. The film itself, plus actress Emma Stone, and director Damien Chazelle are all heavily-tipped for success. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157644/original/image-20170221-18646-1yvi5cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mahershala Ali, nominated for Best Supporting Actor in Moonlight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">A24</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, Mahershala Ali for Supporting Actor in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4975722/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Moonlight</a>, and Viola Davis for Supporting Actress in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2671706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Fences</a> look to have every reason to feel confident. According to the bookmakers, only this year’s Best Actor race should be difficult to predict. Casey Affleck’s performance in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4034228/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Manchester by the Sea</a> is favoured at A$1.57, barely ahead of Denzel Washington at A$2.10.</p>
<p>Do remember, however, that odds can change leading right up to the night. A week before the 2006 ceremony, the longstanding confidence around Brokeback Mountain started to crumble and it drifted from a near-certain A$1.10 to a more doubtful A$1.50. With hindsight, the creeping doubts about its success proved correct.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Woodcock 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>If you want to know who’s going to win the Oscars, your best bet is the bookmakers.Stephen Woodcock, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, University of Technology SydneyLicensed 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/622272016-07-12T15:16:33Z2016-07-12T15:16:33ZHas a deluge of TV gambling ads made Britain a nation of problem punters?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130259/original/image-20160712-9274-1iea11q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C1%2C1020%2C634&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the pink? Betting companies have been on our screens in the hunt for gamblers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/minor9th/4819150946/in/photolist-8kRpFq-aK5Fyt-s7dtSs-a8a7iQ-67ceBz-9BKXhj-bd5iG8-9o6hqe-3f758i-re2skL-6B5Bad-4uA7F5-eSminj-m1HJ3E-9m5RnG-5Ch1cz-8kbcR-8j55H-8o3XN-4NwNpG-8NNZyH-qZiB6-8a59hR-6RLmjA-CG1N9-3PmuBm-4n2986-aZmVKp-8RMrm5-eS9RRn-35JxwS-3j1y2B-7iZ8Cn-duyBkp-bd5ix8-fcjhvs-24fNt-7prJKn-8xSHcw-gaKiAK-jQHWG-vrHMQz-8SfZzP-8RMqtU-jjeaG-CprksH-Y4zMm-cKjNq9-dqJXc-Y4wNo">Simon Pearson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anyone who watched the Euro 2016 football tournament on ITV over the last month will have noticed the many offers to gamble on the matches. You were encouraged to download the bookies’ mobile apps, or asked to bet-in-play and gamble responsibly. But how do we respond to gambling ads? Do they actually draw us in? </p>
<p>Arguably the most noticeable change in the British gambling landscape since the Gambling Act came into force in September 2007 has been the large increase in gambling advertising on television. Prior to this, the only gambling ads allowed on TV were those for National Lottery products, bingo, and the football pools. </p>
<p>In 2013, <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/Trends_in_Ad_Activity_Gambling.pdf?utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gambling-ads">Ofcom published their research</a> examining the volume, scheduling, frequency and exposure of gambling advertising on British television. The findings showed that there had been a 600% increase in UK gambling advertising between 2006 and 2012 – more specifically, there were 1.39m adverts on television in 2012 compared to 152,000 in 2006. The report also showed that gambling adverts accounted for 4.1% of all advertising seen by viewers in 2012, up from 0.5% in 2006 and 1.7% in 2008. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130226/original/image-20160712-9302-1fl6eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Old school, pre-app betting at trackside.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peerlawther/6533642483/in/photolist-34qSJF-34r82v-aQQdm-34rfsR-34redk-34vHS1-59Shom-34reWM-6iJ2CD-aXmChk-34rf9t-34vNeG-34r7UT-34qSfi-34r7DX-34rdR4-9aANMF-34qTPR-34r8uZ-34vi9m-34r8f2-99rqp-34rfoM-34vHhQ-34qT26-4M4tBF-34qJta-34qSt2-34qJMP-34vPeE-34qK7k-95YAQr-dFJ5o-34vqUm-34vMLC-34vqv7-34r8BF-34ra1V-34qKbT-34qTxV-34vrp7-34rd4z-7L6Fct-34qTXH-34r7rc-95YAJ4-95YACT-72Qhp4-7L6Fd8-vAqSBE">Peer Lawther/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bet Fair?</h2>
<p>So is the large increase having any effect on gambling and problem gambling? In 2007, prior to there being widespread gambling ads on TV, the <a href="http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Britsh%20Gambling%20Prevalence%20Survey%202007%20-%20Sept%202007.pdf">British Gambling Prevalence Survey</a> (BGPS) of over 9,000 people (aged 16 years and over) reported that 0.6% of them were problem gamblers. In the <a href="http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/british%20gambling%20prevalence%20survey%202010.pdf">2010 BGPS</a>, the problem gambling prevalence rate had increased by half to 0.9%. Some of this increase may, arguably, have been due to increased gambling advertising. However, the <a href="https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/place-your-bets-has-problem-gambling-in-great-britain-decreased/">latest British survey research</a> shows that the prevalence of problem gambling is back down (to 0.5%), so perhaps increased gambling advertising hasn’t resulted in an increase of problem gambling. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, there is relatively little scientific evidence that advertising directly influences gambling participation and problem gambling. This is partly because demonstrating empirically that the <a href="https://www.casino.org/gambling-addiction.php">negative effects of gambling</a> are solely attributable to advertising is hard. For instance, <a href="https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/gluecksspiel/Sucht/Amey_1995-2000.pdf">a study of 1,500 people in New Zealand</a> by Ben Amey, a governmental social science researcher at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, reported an association between participation in gambling activities and recall of gambling advertising. </p>
<p>The study fund that over 12 months, 83% of people who had gambled between zero and three times remembered seeing gambling ads during that time. For people that had gambled four or more times, the figure was at 93%. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130228/original/image-20160712-9267-dje794.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">Deal with the cards that you’re dealt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/5857803618/in/photolist-9VCLW7-d6Kce3-9shJCs-c2axC7-csUc7h-eZbCzp-jeTZTh-9VzVMg-eZvprE-4Q7JE8-4vXJRb-9VCMJf-5P7Nqv-4HJjXx-4mGsXS-4mGsT7-7hhwKz-qV8HXT-4qbok-4mGsjW-4mGsMw-QjHa-6iyVX-a79tF-eZj46p-eZj43k-cCFztb-eZj44i-9VAaeR-4spai2-9VCWps-5yPapR-9VA1ka-9VzZrR-86S8jf-7qe2pS-s9oJPX-28Mk8-63pHfi-eZvptd-6TvRWd-CL6BiC-eZvpqY-agoCFL-dUH47i-pqCjx8-9VCVE7-9VzYqx-eZj46V-hGEh82">Images Money</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Triggers</h2>
<p>Last year, research colleagues from the University of Bergen in Norway and I published one of the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/11206551/The_impact_of_gambling_advertising_Problem_gamblers_report_stronger_impacts_on_involvement_knowledge_and_awareness_than_recreational_gamblers">largest studies carried out on gambling advertising</a>. It involved more than 6,000 people and examined three specific dimensions of gambling advertising impacts: gambling-related attitudes, interest, and behavior (“involvement”); knowledge about gambling options and providers (“knowledge”); and the degree to which people are aware of gambling advertising (“awareness”).</p>
<p>Overall, we found that impacts were strongest for the “knowledge” dimension. We also found that for all three dimensions, the impact increased with the level of advertising exposure. </p>
<p>We then compared the responses from problem gamblers against those of recreational (non-problem) gamblers. We found that problem gamblers were more likely than recreational gamblers to agree that gambling advertising increased their gambling involvement and knowledge, and that they were more aware of gambling advertising. In simple terms, our study showed that gambling advertising has a greater impact on problem gamblers than recreational gamblers. This indirectly supports <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11780876">previous research</a> showing that problem gamblers often mention that gambling advertising acts as a trigger to their gambling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130232/original/image-20160712-9274-lr7vcq.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Losing streak.</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=&searchterm=gambler&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=287164913">massimofusaro/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also found that younger gamblers were more likely than older ones to agree that advertising increased their gambling involvement and knowledge. This supports <a href="http://youthgambling.mcgill.ca/en/PDF/Publications/2010/Empirical%20study.pdf">previous research</a> showing that problem gambling is associated with stronger perceived advertising impacts among adolescents. One of the more worrying statistics reported in the Ofcom study was that children under 16 years of age were each exposed to an average of 211 gambling adverts a year (adults saw an average of 630). I am a firm believer that gambling is an adult activity and that gambling adverts should be shown only <a href="http://ask.ofcom.org.uk/help/television/watershed">after the 9pm watershed</a>.</p>
<h2>Evidence</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, all televised sporting events such as Euro 2016 can feature gambling ads at any time of the day, and that means that tens of thousands of schoolchildren have been bombarded with gambling ads over the last month.</p>
<p>Most of us who work in the field of responsible gambling agree that advertising “normalises” gambling and that all relevant governmental gambling regulatory agencies should prohibit aggressive advertising strategies, especially those that target impoverished individuals or youths. Most of the research data on gambling advertising uses self-report data (surveys, focus groups, interviews, etc.) and very little of these data provide an insight into the relationship between advertising and problem gambling. A <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045052">review by the British lawyer Simon Planzer and Heather Wardle (the lead author of the last two BGPS surveys)</a> concluded that gambling advertising is an environmental factor that has the power to shape attitudes and behaviours relating to gambling – but just how powerful it is remains unclear.</p>
<p>Overall, the small body of research on the relationship between gambling advertising and problem gambling has few definitive conclusions. If gambling advertising does have an effect, it appears to impact specific groups (such as problem gamblers and adolescents) but most of this research uses self-reported data that has been shown to be <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24708074">unreliable among gamblers</a>.</p>
<p>At best, the scientific research only hints at the potential dangers of gambling ads. But in order to challenge the increasing normalisation of gambling among these most-at-risk groups, we need more robust evidence. Only then will we be able to understand the psychosocial impact of the kind of blanket advertising seen by children and adults during major sporting events such as Euro 2016.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62227/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Mark Griffiths has received research funding from a wide range of organizations including the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy and the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. He has also carried out consultancy for numerous gaming companies in the area of social responsibility and responsible gaming. Views expressed here are his own and not those of these funding bodies.</span></em></p>There were 1.39m gambling ads on television in 2012.Mark Griffiths, Director of the International Gaming Research Unit and Professor of Behavioural Addiction, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.