See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317236034

Biases in the Football Betting Market

Article in SSRN Electronic Journal · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 112

3 authors, including:

David Schoch Sven Kosub

ETH Zurich Universität Konstanz
10 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 311 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sven Kosub on 30 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Biases in the Football Betting Market
Imant Daunhawer, David Schoch, Sven Kosub
Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Konstanz
Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany
hfirstnamei.hlastnamei@uni-konstanz.de
Abstract—This research uses football online betting odds of
a broad variety of matches and bookmakers to identify known
biases in odds pricing, namely the favorite-longshot bias and the
away-favorite bias. Furthermore, it tries to answer the question
whether a naive strategy of betting against these biases can be
profitable. Our findings are consistent with previous research,
confirming the existence of the favorite-longshot bias, but turn out
to be in contrast with regard to the away-favorite bias, for which
there is little evidence in the data. Also, we find that a strategy
of betting against the favorite-longshot bias can be marginally
profitable, whereas bets in favor of it result in large losses on
average.
Keywords—betting market, sports forecasting, bias analysis,
favorite-longshot bias, betting strategy.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Gambling is a game of odds and many studies have demon-
strated that even the mathematically inclined are often misled
by their intuition when dealing with probabilities (Fischhoff
et al., 1982; Nisbett and Ross, 1980; Tversky and Kahneman,
1975). Especially sports betting is filled with emotions and
prejudices that can interfere with bettors’ assessment of the
probability of an event and therefore it is natural to assume
that even the ”wise crowd” (Galton, 1907; Surowiecki, 2005)
can be biased in its decisions.1
For the sport of association football (soccer) there is evi-
dence for the existence of certain biases2 , such as the favorite-
longshot bias and the away-favorite bias, which can be ex-
ploited by bookmakers in order to increase their profits (Levitt,
2004; Vlastakis et al., 2009). However, if different bookmakers
have different strategies of dealing with biases, then this might
lead to arbitrage opportunities for professional gamblers.
The majority of research on the informational efficiency
(Fama, 1970) in betting markets, argues that bookmakers’ odds
reflect all available information, such that betting strategies
are not profitable after considering commissions (Asch et al.,
1984; Sauer, 1998; Williams, 2005; Woodland and Wood-
land, 1994). However, there exist recent individual studies
that report profitable betting strategies on out-of-sample data
using more elaborate models, such as regression-based forecast
encompassing across different bookmakers (Vlastakis et al.,
2009) or Bayesian networks that incorporate both objective and
subjective variables (Constantinou et al., 2012).3 In any case,
1 For examples see Simmons et al. (2011).
2 The mentioned biases are described and attributed in the literature review.
3 Other examples include Goddard and Asimakopoulos (2004) and Dixon
and Coles (1997).
1
even simple betting strategies can lead to a significant decrease
in expected losses, which indicates that betting markets are not
necessarily efficient (Pope and Peel, 1989).
Using odds data on a wide variety of football matches for
17 major bookmakers, this research examines the existence
of the favorite-longshot bias as well as the away-favorite bias
and assesses its variation across bookmakers. Furthermore, it
evaluates whether a naive strategy of betting against these
biases suffices to reap a profit.
This paper is divided into four parts. In the next section it
provides background information about bookmakers’ possible
price-setting strategies and about the types of biases that will
be analysed. Secondly, it describes the data under consider-
ation. The third part provides the results of the explorative
analysis of each of the two biases. Finally, the forth part sum-
marizes the results, provides concluding remarks and suggests
areas for further research.
II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
The literature review is structured into two parts. The first
part summarizes literature explaining that bookmakers can
maximize their profit if they systematically exploit bettors’
biases, instead of only balancing the total amount of staked
money. The second part reviews the two biases that are
examined in the empirical analysis.
A. Why bookmakers care about biases
Levitt (2004) provides a theoretical framework for the
hypothesis that bookmakers can maximize their profit by
exploiting bettors’ biases. He states three alternative scenarios
of how bookmakers can make a profit. According to him
they can either (1) balance the total amount of money bet
across outcomes, such that they are guaranteed to reap their
commission. They can (2) provide accurate forecasts such that
they earn the profit margin in expectation. Alternatively, they
can (3) exploit bettors’ biases in order to make a profit, or a
combination of (2) and (3).
Using information about the size as well as the quantity
of placed bets for a series of matches and by comparing it
to historical odds, the author presents empirical evidence that
bookmakers indeed seem to strategically set their prices to
exploit biased betting behavior, instead of merely balancing
the total amount of staked money across outcomes.
However, Forrest and Simmons (2008) challenge Levitt’s
proposition that more popular bets are priced unfavorably, ar-
guing that the theoretical model fails to incorporate a sentiment
 2

TABLE I. OVERVIEW: B OOKMAKERS

bias. They find that popular teams, measured by their relative
number of supporters, have more favorable odds and at the # matches home away draw profit margin
same time attract more bettors. The authors attribute the bias bookmaker
to competitive forces in the market, rather than to bookmakers’
10Bet 11453 2.456482 3.891990 3.691170 0.099494
effort of exploiting biases.
18bet 8882 2.449066 3.665364 3.507906 0.101435
1xBet 11529 2.577247 4.141693 3.835668 0.062894
B. Biases under study 5Dimes 7761 2.510929 4.018373 3.586395 0.082582
BetOlimp 10298 2.520734 4.053101 3.768124 0.068047
Favorite-longshot bias: The favorite-longshot bias, first
BetVictor 10213 2.523146 4.119260 3.708498 0.080148
observed in racetrack betting (Ali, 1977; Thaler and Ziemba,
Betrally 11207 2.446862 3.842362 3.638025 0.110766
1988), has been identified in many different kinds of sports,
Marathonbet 9566 2.631258 4.351072 3.868630 0.042766
including american football (Golec and Tamarkin, 1991), base-
Pinnacle 8732 2.608744 4.294813 3.836193 0.044301
ball (Woodland and Woodland, 1994) and association football Sekabet 11246 2.493165 3.946490 3.736959 0.088089
(Goddard and Asimakopoulos, 2004). In the case of football Tempobet 11032 2.466698 3.878195 3.666538 0.091917
the favorite-longshot bias reveals a higher return for bets TonyBet 5307 2.528262 4.202592 3.654914 0.076854
placed on favorites, compared to bets on unfavorable outcomes, Unibet 10949 2.477836 3.890434 3.709652 0.091372
so called longshots. It is usually explained either by risk-loving VonBets 9539 2.429075 3.828628 3.561227 0.113161
betting behavior or by bettors’ misperception of probabilities4 bet-at-home 10814 2.419654 3.779010 3.570308 0.117018
and the resulting price-adjustment by the bookmakers. bet365 11255 2.475863 3.952583 3.723893 0.091669
Away-favorite bias: The away-favorite bias is a special case bwin 10962 2.469316 3.848770 3.662796 0.099815
of the favorite-longshot bias and the term was introduced All 12084 2.496447 3.971950 3.693080 0.086954
by Vlastakis et al. (2009). It states that the expected return
is higher for visiting teams that are favorites than it is for
favorites at home. The authors argue that it might be due
to bettors’ overestimation of the home-field advantage and
bookmakers’ reaction to that. Using a poisson-count regression
model with forecast encompassing across bookmakers, the
authors are able to produce considerable returns on out-of-
sample data, if they additionally filter matches according to
the away-favorite bias.

III. DATA
The dataset consists of opening and closing odds of 17
different bookmakers over a period of three months, ranging
from February to May 2017. There is a wide variety of matches
including all games from the European Professional Football
Leagues (EPFL), but also including leagues in small countries
as well as regional leagues. In total there are 12084 league
matches that were played during this time for which there are
available the match results and the respective odds per outcome
and bookmaker.5 Fig. 1. Kernel-smoothing density of the distribution of opening and closing
Table I provides an overview over the bookmakers contained odds, zoomed in on the range [1, 8). Fat lines: all odds. Dashed lines: home
in the data and for each lists the number of matches, average wins. Dash-dot lines: away wins. Dotted lines: draws.
odds per outcome and average profit margin. Notably, the
average profit margin, also known as ”the vig”, ranges from
4.1 to 11.5 percent and for a single match is computed as confidence level of 90 percent (t = −2.034, p = 0.059). On
  average, the profit margin decreases by 0.73% from open to
1 1 1 close for individual matches.
m= + + −1
ohome oaway odraw Figure 1 displays the distribution of odds, broken down by
outcome. On average, odds for home wins are lower (mean
where ox stands for the odds of the respective outcome
= 2.50) than those for away wins (mean = 3.97). Draws have
x ∈ {home, away, draw}. A two-tailed t-test for related
mean odds of 3.7 and we never observe odds for draws that are
samples shows a significant difference for the average profit
smaller than 1.86. Interestingly, across all outcomes opening
margin between opening and closing odds, as it rejects the
odds are more centered than closing odds while the latter seem
null hypothesis of identical average profit margins given a
to partly dissolve into the tails. It is possible that this is due
4 See the discussion in Snowberg and Wolfers (2010), which finds evidence to additional information entering the market in the course of
for the latter reason. time, whereas initial odds are closer to historical values based
5 Data and code are available upon request to the authors. on experience. On average, from open to close, odds increase
 3

TABLE II. FAVORITE -L ONGSHOT B IAS

by e0.05 (sd = 0.688), e0.21 (sd = 1.241), and e0.06 (sd =
0.429), respectively for home-wins, away-wins and draws. odds open odds close
It is important to note that for all parts of the analysis draws count average return count average return
were removed, as the focus lies on the identification of the bins
favorite-longshot bias as well as its special case, the away-
’[1.01, 1.54]’ 31467 -0.049423 34784 -0.041206
favorite bias, where draws might obscure the relation between
’(1.54, 1.8]’ 33904 -0.068894 33671 -0.079710
favorites and longshots. ’(1.8, 2.07]’ 34486 -0.020841 34061 -0.024203
’(2.07, 2.3]’ 36590 -0.035452 34505 -0.043539
IV. R ESULTS ’(2.3, 2.6]’ 41999 -0.090510 35505 -0.076456
’(2.6, 2.95]’ 35725 -0.107545 32976 -0.074598
The bias analysis first explores each bias individually by
’(2.95, 3.4]’ 34186 -0.151683 34838 -0.126358
looking at the average return for different ranges of odds and
’(3.4, 4.15]’ 32099 -0.176102 33292 -0.153247
its variation across bookmakers. For this, the data are divided
’(4.15, 5.65]’ 31921 -0.096745 33842 -0.093433
into ten bins of equal depth6 and the average return r of each ’(5.65, 81]’ 29055 -0.212718 33988 -0.227931
bin Bi is computed as
1 X 
ri = o(t)X(t) − 1
|Bi |
t∈Bi

where o(t) stands for the odds of a data-tuple t and X(t)

denotes an indicator function that is true if the tuple turns
out to be a correct prediction of the outcome. Additionally,
for better differentiation, matches are filtered where there is
a clear favorite, which here is subjectively defined as a team
with odds smaller or equal to 1.5. Conversely, in these matches
the opponent is defined as the longshot.
After exploring the two biases, the analysis proceeds to
identify the bins that lead to the maximal profit for the given
data. Herefore, a greedy search identifies all ranges of odds
that contain at least five percent of all matches. For each
candidate bin the cumulated profit is computed and the results
are combined in a single visualization.

A. Favorite-Longshot Bias
To compare the average returns for different ranges of odds,
the odds are divided into ten bins of equal depth with respect
to the closing odds. Table II lists the average returns per bin
and it gives a first impression that bets with smaller odds have
a higher average return than those with larger odds. Although
there are a few exceptions in the middle ranges, the general
pattern shows that for bets with high odds the average return
is especially bad.
The chosen equal-depth binning provides a rough idea, yet
it is possible that it distorts the returns that are found for
different ranges of odds. For example, the bin (5.65, 81] covers
a very wide range, such that possible subets probably are not
as uneconomical as the bin’s average. With this in mind, a
more detailed inspection is provided in section IV-C.
Furthermore, there seems to be a small difference between
opening and closing odds, as the former exhibit a stronger skew
in favor of bets on favorites and against longshots. However,
the patterns are similar and since betting strategies for closing
odds are more realistic, the analysis only considers closing
odds in the following steps to reduce redundancy.
Next, each bin is further broken down by bookmakers to
illustrate the variation between them. The result is displayed in
6 Each bin holds approximately the same number of odds.
Fig. 2. Average returns for different bins of closing odds. Boxplots represent
the variation of returns across bookmakers for the respective bin. Each bin
contains approximately 10% of all odds (equal-depth).
figure 2 where each boxplot describes the distribution of odds
between bookmakers for the respective bin. Although there are
no bins that have a meaningful positive average return for any
bookmaker (e.g. if we were to consider taxes), there seems
to exist a rather high variation, which might possibly indicate
different pricing strategies in the market. Still, for individual
bookmakers we see a positive average return of up to 3%,
using such a naive betting strategy, however this hypothesis
should be tested more carefully, as the visualization does not
clarify how many bets are considered for a single bookmaker
in each bin, such that those outliers may be due to chance.
Finally, only matches are examined for which there is a
clear favorite-longshot relation as described earlier. Figure 3
provides further evidence for the existence of a favorite-
longshot bias in the data, as it displays the average returns
for clear favorites versus the respective longshots. Favorites
have an average return of −3.64% while longshots return
−26.08% on average. Although there is a large variation across
bookmakers for the return on the longshots, the comparison
clearly exhibits the disadvantage for bets placed on underdogs.
 4

TABLE III. FAVORITE -L ONGSHOT B IAS ( AWAY ONLY )

odds open odds close

count avgerage return count avgerage return
bins

’[1.01, 1.88]’ 16323 -0.063597 17099 -0.056102

’(1.88, 2.3]’ 17458 -0.066311 17795 -0.086893
’(2.3, 2.64]’ 18939 -0.128636 16442 -0.124572
’(2.64, 2.95]’ 20535 -0.141081 17415 -0.065390
’(2.95, 3.29]’ 17491 -0.173911 16669 -0.133395
’(3.29, 3.7]’ 17998 -0.205499 17805 -0.171863
’(3.7, 4.29]’ 16249 -0.177802 16321 -0.171232
’(4.29, 5.2]’ 16837 -0.091742 17609 -0.120454
’(5.2, 7]’ 15772 -0.232905 17628 -0.200398
’(7, 81]’ 13117 -0.302614 15945 -0.301991

Fig. 3. Average returns for clear favorites (closing odds smaller or equal
to 1.5) and the respective longshots. Boxplots describe the variation across
bookmakers.

B. Away-Favorite Bias
To identify the away-favorite bias the data are filtered such
that only odds for away matches are considered. Using the
same procedure as before, the explorative analysis involves
a table of equal-depth bins (table III), its extension for the
variation across bookmakers (figure 4) as well as the focus on
clear favorites.
The table of average returns paints a similar picture as
before, showing that there exists a disadvantage for bets
on longshots for both opening and closing odds. Also, the
variation across bookmakers is comparable to the previous
Fig. 4. Similar to figure 2, but only in terms of away outcomes.
result, however one needs to be careful when comparing bins
directly, as their range has changed according to the new
binning on the filtered subset of data. carefully, as the category of home-longshots has relatively few
Focussing on clear favorites, the analysis now distinguishes observations.9
between away-favorites, home-favorites, away-longshots and
home-longshots, where one type implies another on the other
side of the bet.7 Figure 5 shows the average returns across C. Optimal bins
bookmakers for each of the four classes. Contrary to Vlastakis Since the equal-depth binning is a relatively crude way to
et al. (2009), there is little evidence for an away-favorite bias, segment the data, this part of the analysis uses a more detailed
because the overall average return for this category (−4.41%) approach by iteratively checking all possible bins. For each bin
is comparable to what was observed for the whole set of the cumulated profit is computed as the product of the number
favorites previously. There is, however, a rather large average of odds that fall into the range of the bin, times the average
return for home-longshots (−4.76%) which, for three of the profit margin of that bin. To limit noise, the search ignores
17 bookmakers, even turns out to be positive. Again, this bins that have a range larger than one or that contain fewer
stands in contrast to the results by Vlastakis et al. (2009), who than five percent of all ovservations. Figure 6 displays all bins
found that home-longshots have an average return of less than that satisfy these conditions as horizontal lines, where the bin
−30% for each of the four bookmakers that they studied.8 range is coded as the length of the line and the cumulated
The high returns for single bookmakers must be interpreted return as its position on the y-axis.
7 For example, a home-favorite with odds smaller or equal to 1.5 implies The resulting visualization illustrates that such naive betting
that the other team is an away-longshot. strategies are not sufficient to beat the market, as all of the
8 Note that we defined favorites different than Vlastakis et al. (2009), who bins result in a negative cumulated profit. However, it also
defined them as the team with the larger odds. However, using their definition
we even find an average return of −8.3% on away-favorites, much lower 9 On average, 5.16% of all matches fall into the category of home-longshots
than the average return of −5.1% over all favorites. The authors instead and for some bookmakers even less than 3%. A complete overview over the
observed an average return of 0.39% on away-favorites and of −3.98% over average returns and numbers of observations per category and bookmakers
all favorites. can be found in table IV in the appendix.

Fig. 5. Similar to figure 3, but here it additionally differentiates between
home and away teams.
Fig. 6. Cumulated profit per bin. Each blue horizontal line represents a bin
and its corresponding cumulated profit is coded as a position on the y-axis.
Only bins with a minimal support of more than five percent of all bets are
shown.
demonstrates that there are betting strategies that are less costly
than others and it is possible that the result is less pessimistic
for individual bookmakers or when comparing odds between
them.
V. C ONCLUSION
This study has tested whether two known biases still exist in
the online football betting market. Using odds of 17 different
bookmakers the explorative analysis confirms the existence
of the favorite-longshot bias, but finds little evidence for the
away-favorite bias.
An interesting finding that conflicts with previous research
by Vlastakis et al. (2009) is a relatively high average return
for home-longshots, which is even positive for individual
bookmakers. However, these types of matches are relatively
5
rare, which questions the validity of the finding and also limits
its application as a possible betting strategy. Further research
might look deeper into this finding, for example by using
a larger dataset and varying thresholds for classifying clear
favorites, which here were subjectively defined as teams with
odds smaller or equal to 1.5.
In summary, this research confirms the common knowledge
that naive betting strategies, even though marginally profitable
in some cases, do not suffice to beat the market, which in
the light of this research indicates informational efficiency,
especially if we consider taxes on profits. Yet, this research has
also demonstrated that betting against biases can limit bettors’
losses significantly.
R EFERENCES
Ali, M. M. (1977). Probability and utility estimates for racetrack
bettors. Journal of Political Economy, 85(4):803–815.
Asch, P., Malkiel, B. G., and Quandt, R. E. (1984). Market efficiency
in racetrack betting. Journal of Business, 57(2):165–175.
Constantinou, A. C., Fenton, N. E., and Neil, M. (2012). pi-football:
A bayesian network model for forecasting association football
match outcomes. Knowledge-Based Systems, 36:322–339.
Dixon, M. J. and Coles, S. G. (1997). Modelling association football
scores and inefficiencies in the football betting market. Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics),
46(2):265–280.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and
empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2):383–417.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Lay foibles and
expert fables in judgments about risk. American Statistician,
36(3b):240–255.
Forrest, D. and Simmons, R. (2008). Sentiment in the betting market
on spanish football. Applied Economics, 40(1):119–126.
Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi (the wisdom of crowds). Nature,
75(7):450–451.
Goddard, J. and Asimakopoulos, I. (2004). Forecasting football results
and the efficiency of fixed-odds betting. Journal of Forecasting,
23(1):51–66.
Golec, J. and Tamarkin, M. (1991). The degree of inefficiency in the
football betting market: Statistical tests. Journal of Financial
Economics, 30(2):311–323.
Levitt, S. D. (2004). Why are gambling markets organised so differ-
ently from financial markets? Economic Journal, 114(495):223–
246.
Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
Pope, P. F. and Peel, D. A. (1989). Information, prices and efficiency
in a fixed-odds betting market. Economica, pages 323–341.
Sauer, R. D. (1998). The economics of wagering markets. Journal
of Economic Literature, 36(4):2021–2064.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Galak, J., and Frederick, S. (2011).
Intuitive biases in choice versus estimation: Implications for the
wisdom of crowds. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1):1–15.
Snowberg, E. and Wolfers, J. (2010). Explaining the favorite–long
shot bias: Is it risk-love or misperceptions? Journal of Political
Economy, 118(4):723–746.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.
Thaler, R. H. and Ziemba, W. T. (1988). Anomalies: Parimutuel
betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 2(2):161–174.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty:
 of Finance, 49(1):269–279.
making, pages 141–162. Springer.

markets. Cambridge University Press.

and trading strategies. Journal of Forecasting, 28(5):426–444.

the favorite-longshot bias: The baseball betting market. Journal

Woodland, L. M. and Woodland, B. M. (1994). Market efficiency and
Williams, L. V. (2005). Information efficiency in financial and betting
is the european football betting market? evidence from arbitrage
Vlastakis, N., Dotsis, G., and Markellos, R. N. (2009). How efficient
Heuristics and biases. In Utility, probability, and human decision

favorites longshots home-favorites away-longshots away-favorites home-longshots

count mean count mean count mean count mean count mean count mean
bookie

10Bet 2238.0 -0.053490 2238.0 -0.267181 1763.0 -0.052955 1763.0 -0.309898 475.0 -0.055474 475.0 -0.108632
18bet 1417.0 -0.026076 1417.0 -0.356620 1134.0 -0.024612 1134.0 -0.407646 283.0 -0.031943 283.0 -0.152155
TABLE IV.

1xBet 2026.0 -0.026451 2026.0 -0.230153 1594.0 -0.022785 1594.0 -0.294366 432.0 -0.039977 432.0 0.006782
5Dimes 1148.0 -0.010784 1148.0 -0.207622 916.0 -0.006124 916.0 -0.297500 232.0 -0.029181 232.0 0.147241
BetOlimp 1625.0 -0.015957 1625.0 -0.280880 1299.0 -0.010631 1299.0 -0.343718 326.0 -0.037178 326.0 -0.030491
BetVictor 1899.0 -0.038273 1899.0 -0.256014 1506.0 -0.037497 1506.0 -0.297258 393.0 -0.041247 393.0 -0.097964
Betrally 2251.0 -0.059991 2251.0 -0.286406 1782.0 -0.060219 1782.0 -0.330948 469.0 -0.059126 469.0 -0.117164
Marathonbet 1594.0 -0.020458 1594.0 -0.182434 1259.0 -0.021430 1259.0 -0.230500 335.0 -0.016806 335.0 -0.001791
Pinnacle 1366.0 -0.033807 1366.0 -0.086720 1090.0 -0.034367 1090.0 -0.138294 276.0 -0.031594 276.0 0.116957
TABLES

Sekabet 2106.0 -0.048666 2106.0 -0.257550 1668.0 -0.044113 1668.0 -0.308723 438.0 -0.066005 438.0 -0.062671
A PPENDIX A

Tempobet 1985.0 -0.030292 1985.0 -0.311814 1577.0 -0.029252 1577.0 -0.354756 408.0 -0.034314 408.0 -0.145833
TonyBet 903.0 -0.040210 903.0 -0.253765 736.0 -0.041957 736.0 -0.332948 167.0 -0.032515 167.0 0.095210
Unibet 2045.0 -0.035765 2045.0 -0.289330 1612.0 -0.034950 1612.0 -0.339504 433.0 -0.038799 433.0 -0.102540
VonBets 1715.0 -0.043289 1715.0 -0.282169 1366.0 -0.037862 1366.0 -0.338382 349.0 -0.064527 349.0 -0.062149
bet-at-home 2117.0 -0.044672 2117.0 -0.340874 1677.0 -0.044681 1677.0 -0.378986 440.0 -0.044636 440.0 -0.195614
bet365 2173.0 -0.039015 2173.0 -0.266323 1713.0 -0.030169 1713.0 -0.333946 460.0 -0.071957 460.0 -0.014500
B IASES FOR CLEAR FAVORITES

bwin 2102.0 -0.050799 2102.0 -0.277307 1641.0 -0.049720 1641.0 -0.331444 461.0 -0.054642 461.0 -0.084599

View publication stats

All 2809.0 -0.036353 2809.0 -0.260774 2186.0 -0.034313 2186.0 -0.315813 623.0 -0.044113 623.0 -0.047642
6