Academic papers

[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?

[sionascaig]

"It has been known for decades that published results are likely to be biased in favor of authors’ theoretical inclinations (Sterling, 1959). The strongest scientific evidence for publication bias stems from a comparison of the rate of significant results in psychological journals and the statistical power of published studies"

"It has been overlooked that estimates of statistical power are also inflated by the use of questionable research methods. Thus, the commonly reported estimate that typical power in psychological studies is 60% is an inflated estimate of true power (Schimmack, 2012). If the actual power is less than 50%, it means that a typical study in psychology has a larger probability to fail (produce a false negative result) than to succeed (rejecting a false null-hypothesis). Conducting such low powered studies is extremely wasteful. Moreover, few researchers have resources to discard 50% of their empirical output. As a result, the incentive for the use of questionable research practices that inflate effect sizes is strong."

https://replicationindex.com/2016/01/31 ... e-r-index/

[Derek27]

There was a £10K funded Oxford University study that concluded that fast food makes you put on weight.

[alexmr2]

How about £3 million spent on research of if men can get pregnant?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... t-men.html

I agree with the comments implying that papers are often biased towards the opinion of the author. Even more so in a case where most people try and fail which leaves them with a confirmation bias that if they can't do it, then it is impossible.

The turnaround of academics has massively increased over the last couple of decades. From my experience of university, I have a feeling that many papers were just written so someone can get their degree/promotion/funding or retain their academic status.

Someone who is genuinely making money isn't going to share their strategy and if they do it won't be profitable for much longer. It would interesting to read everything that Peter or other successful traders have learned about the BF markets but it wouldn't happen in a zero sum game.

Although I believe there isn't any magic secret to profitable trading, I'm sure there's lots of clever tricks that would blow our minds

[ShaunWhite]

I agree with the comments implying that papers are often biased towards the opinion of the author.

I don't read anything that requires an opinion for the reasons you said. But anything mathematical where you can go through the proof is much less likely to be flawed.

... And the good stuff is out there, self interest isn't always about secrecy and getting rich and academics especially often seek validation through intellectual respect instead. And they also know that every new revelation is just the next one, and if someone else can build on their work then that's a good thing for the subject.

[Crazyskier]

"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.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. A. Pope.

CS

[Trader Pat]

"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.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. A. Pope.

CS

Which pope?

[Crazyskier]

"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.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. A. Pope.

CS

Which pope?

Haha! Sounds like Professor Langdon. Alexander, of course.

CS

[Morbius]

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