Academic papers

[Euler]

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

[jamesg46]

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

You wouldn’t be contacted by an academic because the objective isn’t to research for themselves, they rather absorb conclusions from previous academics & put the same conclusions into their own words. The shift in conclusion is surely an impossibility.

[stueytrader]

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

The issue with academic research into gambling/trading is that it has an entirely different goal and focus, to the type of focus that we (as traders/bettors) would hold.

Academic research has almost entirely been focused upon the twin ideas of problem gambling and addiction. So, they also alter their samples and study designs to focus on those questions.

As traders, we are usually asking different questions - how do we become more accurate/optimal for example. There is some crossover with their research though, specifically in areas such as discipline and control. But, many research studies are too biased (as suggested above) to give much useful information for a serious trader/bettor IMO.

To be fair, research into problem gambling is a serious issue, as it does badly affect lives in many cases.

[Realrocknrolla]

Most of the conversations I have had with anyone regarding problem gambling and the same thing crops up.

Rainbow Riches and online casinos.

Not so much with sports more the first mentioned.

[Realrocknrolla]

Apprentice jockey given six-month ban after admitting to betting on horses
https://www.racingpost.com/

To feed his online CASINO addiction.

[weemac]

I've also read quite a number of academic papers over the years. They can often make the maths, methodology and "science" look impressive, but the conclusions invariably come across as feeble.

[Euler]

I figured a few years ago there was a fundamental disconnect with the way people think.

People form their own conclusions first, then look for evidence of it.

To be able to detach yourself from that and work the other way around is a real skill and essential when trading.

[PDC]

I read a lot of academic papers

What is it you mean by Academic papers? That's a bit of a catch all phrase.

[Euler]

I'm a member of various sites and libraries where peer-reviewed papers get published. Sort of bedtime reading. It certainly seems to send me off to sleep well each night!

[ShaunWhite]

"academic papers" range from a student thesis to Nobel Prize winning. I don't really see hoe you can make any generalisations.

The extract above is just saying that knowing all about a sport doesn't inherently make you any good at gambling on it. It's what we say on here, knowing too much about the teans/horses etc will often be a hunderence rather than a help. Fans aren't great gamblers so promoting gambling to sports fans is potentially problematic. Or am I missing something.

[PDC]

I would be wary of those sites if they are consistently allowing poorly peer reviewed papers to be published. Being peer reviewed doesn't mean it is a quality well researched paper. Peer reviewing is almost as murky as betting! Stick to well respected publications when looking at research papers though that will be harder for gambling related research.

As Shaun has said, I wouldn't generalise or you will be guilty of your own comment

People form their own conclusions first, then look for evidence of it.

[PDC]

For anyone that wants to read the paper mentioned in the OP:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ll_betting

[stueytrader]

I've tried to consider for some time (also having something of an academic connection to these type of publications in my own employment) whether journal articles and research can be adapted for less problem gambling types.

The problem is sample IMO - they tend to mostly only study problem gamblers. This leads to a kind of tautological paradigm - they study the problem sample, and conclude that is how everyone acts. Of course it won't be true for many.

However, there probably are crossovers, for non-problem gamblers. That is a key question if we want to read these things in any way usefully.

[Euler]

It's not just this paper, but most papers I see are embedded with this sort of issue.

It's really difficult to see well structured, well thought out, clearly explained independent rationale. I plough through so many of these papers and most really don't tell you much or reach the wrong conclusion or don't see the correction causation.

[PDC]

It's really difficult to see well structured, well thought out, clearly explained independent rationale.

Why not write some of your own papers?