winning streaks & losing streaks

In a study funded by the casino industry, researchers at University College, London, took a sampling of 569,915 bets taken on an online sports-gambling site and tracked how previous wins and losses affected the probability of wins in the future. Over all, the winning percentage of the bets was somewhere around forty eight per cent. The researchers isolated the winners and tracked how they fared in their subsequent bets. In bet two, winners won at a rate of forty-nine per cent. From there, the numbers go haywire. A player who had won two bets in a row won his third bet at a rate of fifty-seven per cent. His fourth bet won sixty-seven percent of the time, his fifth bet seventy-two.

Losers, unsurprisingly, continued to lose. Of the 190,359 bettors who lost their initial bet, fifty-three per cent lost their next, and those who had enough money left for a third round lost sixty per cent of the time. When unfortunate bettors got to five straight losses, their chance of winning dropped to twenty-three per cent.

What the research did find was that gamblers on streaks—good or bad—acted under the influence of the gambler’s fallacy. Winning bettors began placing more prudent bets because they assumed their luck would soon run out. Losers began placing bets with longer odds because they wanted to win big when their luck finally, inevitably changed. What this means is that streaky gamblers who win do so because they expect to lose, and streaky gamblers who lose do so because they expect to win. Or, more simply put, when you’re losing, you’re wrong, but when you’re winning, you’re also wrong.

Yeah, this was an interesting study by the authors about sports betting habits. Many of these sportsbettors chased their losses by upping the odds of their next bet and tended to lock up their wins by lowering the odds of their next bet.

I think reading the full research article makes the point clearer though. A lot of the websites summarizing the paper make it sound like these are always even-money bets. They are NOT.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714000031

Quote: reno

In a study funded by the casino industry, researchers at University College, London, took a sampling of 569,915 bets taken on an online sports-gambling site and tracked how previous wins and losses affected the probability of wins in the future. Over all, the winning percentage of the bets was somewhere around forty eight per cent. The researchers isolated the winners and tracked how they fared in their subsequent bets. In bet two, winners won at a rate of forty-nine per cent. From there, the numbers go haywire. A player who had won two bets in a row won his third bet at a rate of fifty-seven per cent. His fourth bet won sixty-seven percent of the time, his fifth bet seventy-two.

I think what this indicates as that the more repeat winning occurs the more likely the people that make it there know what they are doing (after each win they are subsequently more likely to be a good gambler). Like panning for gold, the longer you pan the more the gold is revealed.

Pretty much common sense.

Quote: Swanson234

Quote: reno

In a study funded by the casino industry, researchers at University College, London, took a sampling of 569,915 bets taken on an online sports-gambling site and tracked how previous wins and losses affected the probability of wins in the future. Over all, the winning percentage of the bets was somewhere around forty eight per cent. The researchers isolated the winners and tracked how they fared in their subsequent bets. In bet two, winners won at a rate of forty-nine per cent. From there, the numbers go haywire. A player who had won two bets in a row won his third bet at a rate of fifty-seven per cent. His fourth bet won sixty-seven percent of the time, his fifth bet seventy-two.

I think what this indicates as that the more repeat winning occurs the more likely the few people that make it there know what they are doing (and are subsequently more likely to be a good gambler). Like panning for gold, the longer you pan the more the gold is revealed.

Pretty much common sense.

That is not at all what the study says. It says specifically that people started betting more conservatively on winning streaks and less conservatively on the losing streak.

I mean if I bet 2 of the 12 numbers on roulette I will win 24/37 times but that doesn't mean i know what I'm doing.

Quote: Swanson234

Quote: reno

In a study funded by the casino industry, researchers at University College, London, took a sampling of 569,915 bets taken on an online sports-gambling site and tracked how previous wins and losses affected the probability of wins in the future. Over all, the winning percentage of the bets was somewhere around forty eight per cent. The researchers isolated the winners and tracked how they fared in their subsequent bets. In bet two, winners won at a rate of forty-nine per cent. From there, the numbers go haywire. A player who had won two bets in a row won his third bet at a rate of fifty-seven per cent. His fourth bet won sixty-seven percent of the time, his fifth bet seventy-two.

I think what this indicates as that the more repeat winning that occurs the more it's likely the few people that make it there know what they are doing (and are subsequently more likely to be a good gambler). Like panning for gold, the longer you pan the more the gold is revealed.

Pretty much common sense.

I would agree and also suggest the losers underestimate the odds against them thinking the odds are 5050.

Quote: Twirdman

Quote: Swanson234

Quote: reno

In a study funded by the casino industry, researchers at University College, London, took a sampling of 569,915 bets taken on an online sports-gambling site and tracked how previous wins and losses affected the probability of wins in the future. Over all, the winning percentage of the bets was somewhere around forty eight per cent. The researchers isolated the winners and tracked how they fared in their subsequent bets. In bet two, winners won at a rate of forty-nine per cent. From there, the numbers go haywire. A player who had won two bets in a row won his third bet at a rate of fifty-seven per cent. His fourth bet won sixty-seven percent of the time, his fifth bet seventy-two.

I think what this indicates as that the more repeat winning occurs the more likely the few people that make it there know what they are doing (and are subsequently more likely to be a good gambler). Like panning for gold, the longer you pan the more the gold is revealed.

Pretty much common sense.

That is not at all what the study says. It says specifically that people started betting more conservatively on winning streaks and less conservatively on the losing streak.

I mean if I bet 2 of the 12 numbers on roulette I will win 24/37 times but that doesn't mean i know what I'm doing.

If the chance of a person winning keeps going up by each subsequent win, doesn't that mean the people who are gambling amateurs are being weeded out so to speak, and the gambling pros are being "panned out" to use a gold prospecting term?

What do you mean people start betting more conservatively? I don't bet sports often, by "conservatively" do you mean betting more intelligently? A win is a win and a loss is a loss in sports betting, is it not??

Quote: Swanson234

What do you mean people start betting more conservatively? I don't bet bet sports often, by "conservatively" do you mean betting more intelligently? A win is a win and a loss is a loss in sports betting, is it not??

They are technically wins and losses, but some wins/losses are easier to obtain than others in sports.

Twirdman points out the data in the study shows bettors generally bet on bigger favorites when they have a winning streak. And since favorites win more often, it's more likely the winning streak will continue.

Conversely, when they are on a losing streak, the bettors tend to bet larger underdogs, which will also increase the chances the losing streak will continue as well.

This study, while having interesting data, fails to really show whether hot/cold streaks happen in sport bets because they didn't restrict the data to only even money wagers (minus juice).

Quote: tringlomane

They are technically wins and losses, but some wins/losses are easier to obtain than others in sports.

Twirdman points out the data in the study shows bettors generally bet on bigger favorites when they have a winning streak. And since favorites win more often, it's more likely the winning streak will continue.

Conversely, when they are on a losing streak, the bettors tend to bet larger underdogs, which will also increase the chances the losing streak will continue as well.

This study, while having interesting data, fails to really show whether hot/cold streaks happen in sport bets because they didn't restrict the data to only even money wagers (minus juice).

I assume a line and "juice" are all put into place and the bets are even money. But I don't bet a lot of sports and know little to nothing. I know sports betting about as much as I know how to perform triple bypass surgery.

I also bet a significant amount of money on a certain equestrian related football team on a certain somewhat recently occurring superbowl.