But still, the point of forecasting is only to be better than the one with whom you make a parlay (usually a bookmaker). Therefore, when evaluating forecasting, odds are needed. If you think that odds will affect your predictions, you can first make a prediction, and then look at the odds.
These predictions are not meant for gambling purposes.
You definitely are right that odds need to be posted.
TBH I have not the slightest clue how betting underdogs do versus betting favorites in NFL leagues, or how often my picks are betting favorites on paper.
This is a for fun, learning experience thing atm.
Sorry to bump into this thread but yes, accuracy without odds don't mean anything. For example, on my own thread, my accuracy is less than 10% from season to season (and currently on a rather high >10%) but that's because the majority of the bets are longshot odds.
I know some people (and even on this forum) sell their picks advertising high accuracy, but the only reason people would pay for signals is to make profit.
If you only bet on 15/10 odds, you'd need 66% accuracy just to break even, so 70% is necessary to be profitable on those. And in my experience, those posting 70%+ accuracy have a healthy number of picks below 15/10.
So odds are, to me, completely necessary -- you can always include them after you make predictions. Also, because a 3/1 underdog is in a very different bracket to a 20/1 underdog
Officially announced break even stats depend on an even distribution.
Gamblers usually increase or decrease bet amount, depending on how confident they are on individual picks.
Averages don't really apply. In my humble opinion anyway.
I'm curious about the 73.2% accuracy thing as It's hard to achieve as a sports bettor, so I'm here checking your thread.
I think I would agree with @buwaytress here as the odds are very important, it does matter on your money as betting on the favorites will likely give you more win as most of the bettors would choose to bet on the favorites until they see the odds are lower which means the low return of their money risk.
it would be more enticing if the odds would be at least 1.90 as according to what I read, you just need to maintain at least 52.4% in order to have a successful betting journey for the long term.
https://medium.com/the-intelligent-sports-wagerer/why-52-4-is-the-most-important-percentage-in-sports-gambling-16ade8003c04I don't agree with the logic offered behind the 52.4% statistic.
There were days where my picks when 7-1 (87.5% correct) and I still lost money due to placing larger bets on the single loser, than I did the 7 winners.
And there have been days when my accuracy hovered around 50% and I made money due to allocation being shifted in the opposite direction.
52.4% might apply in cases, where someone makes 100 bets of equal value. But in my experience, that is not how people do things.
Good article. Nothing new in terms of mathematics, but I'm glad that this important point is emphasized:
To ensure profit, the bookmaker need not be able to predict the outcome of games more accurately than bettors — the bookmaker merely needs to predict bettor preferences so as to balance wagers on each side.
I see distorted bets often (due to the fact that bookmakers give odds based on the mood of the public) and I see that there is a good opportunity for real money on betting. As for the forecasts from this topic, I hope the author will post his next forecasts before the events and I will try to check his forecasts in terms of profitability.
Bookmakers have better and more reliable sources of insider information. They have sources the general public usually has no access to, to help them set the line profiting them the most $$.
Athletes can have personal issues, injuries, substance abuse problems, relationship drama and other conditions that will affect their performance the public would never know about. While bookmakers often do know about these circumstances and move the line accordingly -- in whichever direction they believe will profit them the most.
