Euler wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:27 am
I read a lot of academic papers, but have never been contacted by an academic for a study. So it's no surprise they are always so far off in their conclusion. They exhibit a form of cognitive bias themselves!
This is extracted from one I read this morning: -
Conclusions:
Expertise, age, and gender did not appear to have an impact on the accuracy of the football match prognoses. Therefore, the belief that football expertise improves betting skills is no more than a cognitive distortion called the “illusion of control”.
Gamblers may benefit from psychological interventions that target the illusion of control related to their believed links between betting skills and football expertise. Public health policies may need to consider the phenomenon in order to prevent problem gambling related to football betting
I have read hundreds of academic papers down the years and my take on this topic is that like anything else there is a huge difference in quality from the best to the worst. Many academics seem to think that they have a divine right to be correct in their assumptions merely because they are "academics" and the rest of us mere mortals are not worthy merely because we don't understand advanced mathematics. But there are the "Cristiano Ronaldo's" of the academic world and the "Phil Jones" types all the way down to the Vanarama quality academics but even the leading ones often lack depth. However their work cannot be ignored and I think you recognise that Pete otherwise you wouldn't have read so many
"The Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets" is a collection of such works and contains some of the better stuff out there. It also includes the papers that William Benter used for his HK syndicate all those years ago. A book so good Ive got two copies of it after I read the spine off the first copy lol
