• About Us / Contact
  • Responsible Gambling
This site contains commercial content
SportsHandle
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News
No Result
View All Result
SportsHandle
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News
No Result
View All Result
SportsHandle
No Result
View All Result

Brainy Bettors Should Listen To The Buzz Before Betting

Researchers in England show betting on buzzy women's tennis players a profitable strategy

Jeff Edelstein by Jeff Edelstein
April 21, 2022
in Features
raducanu

Shutterstock

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

It was Aristotle — yes, we’re starting this with Aristotle — who once said, β€œIt is possible that the many, though not individually good men, yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those supplied at one man’s cost.”

In short: Ol’ Ari was probably the first dude to come up with the whole β€œwisdom of the crowds” thing. If everyone puts their heads together, a better answer may follow.

Through the years, the idea that the collective has a better handle on any matter than a single person — even if that person is an expert — has been tested, twisted, and applied.Β 

The wisdom of the crowds. pic.twitter.com/ApgbnwZMww

— Thinkwert (@Thinkwert) July 1, 2021

Now, a trio of economists at the University of Reading in England have put the theory to the test, more or less, when it comes to women’s tennis, Wikipedia, and sports betting.

The β€œmore or less” is because the researchers didn’t sit 20,000 people down and ask who would win last summer’s U.S. Open: Emma Raducanu or Leylah Fernandez.

What they did, instead, was scrape the internet and see how many were reading up on the players on Wikipedia.

β€œWe’re looking up players before the matches start, and the idea being maybe that represents some information about buzz, how interested the public is in the players,” said Carl Singleton of Reading’s Department of Economics. β€œIt could reflect how those players are doing, it could reflect unusually good performance in their last match. The activity captured from Wikipedia, of people just having a look at these players, we thought it might capture something about how those players have been performing.”

Bzzzzzzzzzz ….

So Singleton — along with Philip Ramirez and J. James Reade, his co-authors on the paper titled “Betting on a buzz, mispricing and inefficiency in online sportsbooks” — looked at that U.S. Open match, and at over 10,000 more women’s tennis matches from 2015 onward. They scraped the publicly available Wikipedia API to create what they called Wiki Relative Buzz Factor.

In a nutshell, it’s how many people were looking at the Wikipedia pages of a tennis player, relative to both how often people previously looked as well as relative to the player’s opponent.

And what the researchers found was that buzz is real.

β€œWe found if you followed the players through Wikipedia and bet on players with higher relative buzz — the idea being more people are looking at them relative to their opponent and relative to past amount of interest — it implies you should bet on them,” Singleton said. “If you follow that strategy, based on our look at historical matches, you could make a sustained profit.”

To be clear: Wikipedia buzz did a better job at predicting women’s tennis matches than bookmakers.Β 

What’s more, Singleton said the effect was even greater the tighter the odds got.

β€œWe found the inefficiencies are bigger in matches that are expected to be close, where there was a little more uncertainty in who’s going to win,” he said.Β 

Overall, the method — with bets placed using the Kelly criterion — had a return on investment of over 28% during the five-year period, according to the paper.

Dupe me

Singleton and company also published replication code and instructions for what they did, with the idea others can try and see if the β€œbuzz” also applies to men’s tennis, or any other sport.

The paper, which is currently under review for publication, obviously provides a blueprint for potentially beating the books, and Singleton notes that one of the reviewers has already asked him about that. Namely, why publish something if you think you have this tremendous edge?

β€œThat tends to imply something about bookmakers that I disagree with, that there are all these inefficiencies and mispricings out there, and they’re consistently being identified in academic journals, and then the bookmakers make the mispricings disappear once they are published,” Singleton said. β€œBut bookmakers are not forecasters, they’re profit maximizers and they’re reflecting the biases amongst their customers.”

In other words: Bettors gonna bet, and the bookmakers will adjust their odds accordingly, but not necessarily because a few Englishmen publish something about buzz.

And while Singleton notes this isn’t classic β€œwisdom of the crowds,” it certainly comes close.

β€œWisdom of the crowds, in pure terms, is people actually making predictions,” he said. β€œHere we don’t know what’s generating this buzz — could be more journalists covering a player, could be the player just had a great match, we don’t know. We just know how much buzz they are getting.”

Interesting side note here: This was an accidental paper of sorts. The trio originally planned to study the effect of beauty when it came to betting on women’s tennis matches. Basically: Do dudes overbet on better-looking players?

Emma Raducanu

She is hot! pic.twitter.com/JdUZpS2bUG

— AmerEurope (@AmerEurope) September 10, 2021

β€œWe’re still working on that,” Singleton said.Β 

Stay tuned.

ShareTweetShare
Jeff Edelstein

Jeff Edelstein

Jeff is a veteran journalist, working as a columnist for The Trentonian newspaper in Trenton, NJ for a number of years. He's also an avid sports bettor and DFS player. He can be reached at [email protected]

Related Posts

whats on tap
Industry

What’s On Tap: NFL Week 1, Alabama-Texas, And U.S. Open Championship Weekend

September 6, 2022
Colorado July 2022 revenue report
Industry

Colorado Sportsbooks Top $20M In Revenue For July

September 1, 2022
Load More

Top Stories

taylor mathis

Taylor Mathis Got Sacrificed At The Altar Of Responsible Gambling

March 20, 2023
fanduel baseball wall

Premade Same Game Parlays Are Sucker Bets

March 13, 2023
maginfier-over-small-print

Read The Fine Print: A Proposed Federal Rule Could Change Everything For Indian Gaming

March 6, 2023
roman reigns wwe

Colorado Denies Report Stating That It’s Considering WWE Wagering

March 8, 2023

State Sports Betting Guides

Ohio (U.S. state) flag waving against clear blue sky, close up, isolated with clipping path mask alpha channel transparency, perfect for film, news, composition

Ohio Sports Betting – Where To Play, Bonus Offers And Promo Codes

by Brian Pempus
March 30, 2023

Downtown Detroit at twilight (Shutterstock)

Michigan Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks, And FAQ

by Brett Smiley
March 27, 2023

VA captial

Virginia Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks And Bonus Offers

by Brett Smiley
January 17, 2023

nj flag

New Jersey Sports Betting — Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks, And FAQ

by Brett Smiley
March 22, 2023

pa online sportsbooks

Pennsylvania Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks And Bonuses

by Brett Smiley
October 6, 2022

Canada Sports Betting Guides

Canada Sports Betting – Best Sportsbook Apps & Bonus Offers

British Columbia Sports Betting – Legal Update, Available Sportsbooks, and FAQ

Ontario Sports Betting – Legal Status And Where To Play

SportsHandle

  • Analysis
  • Casino
  • Features
  • Horse Racing
  • Industry
  • Legal
  • Legislation
  • Opinion
  • Podcasts
  • Poker
  • Politics
  • Promotions
  • Regulation
  • Sports
  • Uncategorized

Better Collective

This website is owned and operated by Better Collective USA. Trademarks and copyrights referenced on this website are and shall remain the exclusive property of their respective owners and/or licensors. Please be sure to visit the operator’s website(s) to review their terms & conditions. We advise you to read these carefully as they contain important information. Copyright Β© 2023 USBets.com | Better Collective USA
21 Play Responsibly
Gamble Aware West Virginia
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler.
GameSense

Search Sports Handle

No Result
View All Result
  • About Us / Contact
  • Responsible Gambling

No Result
View All Result
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News

loading

Please wait while you are redirected to the right page...