Predicting and setting odds are not the same thing.

[Gozie51]

2. Factors for which statistics are not yet collected or for which few people know. For example, hormonal changes in players' bodies that affect their performance. This especially affects women, for example, in tennis.

Some of these factors is not suppose to be the business of bookmakers neither should they start to consider them even though they know that they exist. Like setting the female football odds, they know women go through mood swing especially during their "monthly flow " but how can that be fathom into odd rating? No. It is the duty of the coach to organize his team the way it will be suitable for the mood of the team. So I believe odd rating is all things being equal as the way book markers go about odds after considering physical factors like stats as availability of players, cards, players missing match, phycology and preparedness of the players.

[justdimin]

setting bookmaker odds "correctly" for an upcoming game doesn't mean predicting the outcome correctly. You, as a bookmaker, can set the odds "correctly," that is, rationally, in accordance with the available statistics, but the actual outcome of the match will contradict the advantage you set in the odds.

I do not think that here bookmakers are setting up anything. When some bettors are on one side against a different number of bettors then odds are being generated based on that. This is the simple reason why for a match with unpredictable winner, the odds will remain almost same. Because there would be almost same amount of bettors on both the sides.

So, odds are NOT just number being setup by houses but it is an outcome based on the number of bettors betting against each other.

I believe bookmakers don’t actually predict who will win. Their job is to set the odds in a way that keeps things balanced, so they make a profit no matter who wins.

When someone is really setting up, how things be remain balanced or neutral? In some betting system, odds start with 1 and get modified along with number of bets. So, it will remain balanced. And obviously bookmakers make profits even with tied matches or abandoned matches when they include these probabilities as one of the outcome.

[Agbamoni]

Bookmakers simply use current performance to set odds. Other times, they use last meetings to predict who are in a better position to win, and most of the times they choose the favorite wrongly.

In conclusion, bookmakers are 50% right and 50% wrong when it comes to predicting the outcome of a game. They just set the odds to be in their favor at the end of the day.

[Natalim]

Bookmakers simply use current performance to set odds. Other times, they use last meetings to predict who are in a better position to win, and most of the times they choose the favorite wrongly.

In conclusion, bookmakers are 50% right and 50% wrong when it comes to predicting the outcome of a game. They just set the odds to be in their favor at the end of the day.

We don’t really know the exact basis they use for setting the odds, but one thing’s for sure, once the odds or the line is available in the market, it usually attracts betting on both sides.

And if you notice there’s line movement, that’s them adjusting to make sure the action stays balanced. so judging from that, it’s clear their main concern isn’t who wins the game or fight, it’s about what people think, and they adjust accordingly to balance the betting market.

At the end of the day, the vig or commission is what they’re after. imagine, even 10% from winning bets adds up to a huge profit if the volume is big.

[letteredhub]

And can we equate the two phrases "predicting the outcome of a game" and "setting the odds correctly"? But setting bookmaker odds "correctly" for an upcoming game doesn't mean predicting the outcome correctly. You, as a bookmaker, can set the odds "correctly," that is, rationally, in accordance with the available statistics, but the actual outcome of the match will contradict the advantage you set in the odds.
Why is this so? Because the actual outcome of a match is influenced not only by the statistics that have been collected, but also by:

In current football the odds size can't be used to guarantee right predictions even though it's part of what influences where our predictions lean towards. Bookmakers are quite good in using the odds size to confuse gamblers from having a neutral reasoning base on stats on ground and unavoidable situations like key players injuries.

In the UCL yesterday, the Barcelona vs PSG game, the home team was given a very lowered odds by bookmakers while PSG got a high odd size that was too good to be attractive to pick. Still PSG won the match 1:2, meanwhile many gamblers picked barcela who were tipped by bookmakers through the size of the odd to be winners.

[Porfirii]

-snip- the actual outcome of a match is influenced not only by the statistics that have been collected, but also by:
1. Statistics that weren't collected for some reason, but were important for the outcome of the match (some minor factors that influenced the outcome of the match, which we consider "chance" or "luck").
2. Factors for which statistics are not yet collected or for which few people know. For example, hormonal changes in players' bodies that affect their performance. This especially affects women, for example, in tennis.
3. Factors that haven't even been formalized yet and are poorly understood. I can't give specific examples here for obvious reasons.

I think that the most important ones are 2 and 3, people are not aware of them as much as they should. You mentioned hormonal changes, which is something that can be understood and one day even measured somehow (with wearables or whatevearables ), but totally ignored today, and we could add external factors too like wind, humidity, atmospheric pressure, light intensity and refraction... with the very same problem.

As per the unknown ones in the point nr. 3, I wouldn't dare venture to guess what they might be, although perhaps we should even take into account questions of quantum physics that are totally incomprehensible according to the state of the art.

[rachael9385]

And can we equate the two phrases "predicting the outcome of a game" and "setting the odds correctly"? But setting bookmaker odds "correctly" for an upcoming game doesn't mean predicting the outcome correctly. You, as a bookmaker, can set the odds "correctly," that is, rationally, in accordance with the available statistics, but the actual outcome of the match will contradict the advantage you set in the odds.
Why is this so? Because the actual outcome of a match is influenced not only by the statistics that have been collected, but also by:
1. Statistics that weren't collected for some reason, but were important for the outcome of the match (some minor factors that influenced the outcome of the match, which we consider "chance" or "luck").
2. Factors for which statistics are not yet collected or for which few people know. For example, hormonal changes in players' bodies that affect their performance. This especially affects women, for example, in tennis.
3. Factors that haven't even been formalized yet and are poorly understood. I can't give specific examples here for obvious reasons.

Indeeds odds arrangement and predicting are not in any way connected to each other but they have one thing in common, both are being generated by the use of stats. That bookmakers are also bettors, they don't just set the odds randomly, everything is being calculated according to the stats that they make use of. The bookies also use set the odds in a way that bettors can be tricked into making the wrong choice.

[₿itcoin]

yeah.. Determining probabilities by seeing odds is not the same as predicting the correct outcome. As you know, bookies set prices to reflect the underlying probability &  profit margin &  they also balance responsibility in doing so, not because we magically predict every outcome by looking at the odds. Again, if you notice the odds change as well with how people place their bet, so the market side is as important as the model.

Moreover, there is also the real randomness of sports &  many hidden rare factors, such as injuries, sudden drops in form, stress, even physiological things that people dont record but the oddsmakers notice. So the results often surprise even the best lines. imo  probabilities should be considered as smart estimates &  risk management should be followed. confusing reasonable prices with guarantees means the collapse is inevitable. lmao , that is the harsh but honest truth, man..

[Ivystar5]

Setting odds correctly is more like a hard task for people which is why the sport bookies and casinos are there to do that already but for some reason also add more odds to their advantage in other to get more users on the ground that the potential win will be high if won in their own casino or sport bookie, then at the end of the day, we are only to predict and prediction it totally different from setting odds because you only guess your closest to win through the odds and your personal knowledge of the players/team.

[mcdouglasx]

Betting houses have algorithms, usually services offered by third parties that collect data to calculate the data that balance the scales in a way that keeps the probability of each team for each play closer to the midpoint, for example in an NBA game in the bet on how many baskets there will be in total in the game, the algorithm makes an approximation of this and establishes a probable midpoint, where it is difficult for the player to guess whether the final result will be higher or lower than the total limit of points imposed.

[peter0425]

Bookmakers simply use current performance to set odds. Other times, they use last meetings to predict who are in a better position to win, and most of the times they choose the favorite wrongly.

In conclusion, bookmakers are 50% right and 50% wrong when it comes to predicting the outcome of a game. They just set the odds to be in their favor at the end of the day.

Bookmakers set the odds based on where most bettors are betting their money on. If one side has more people betting on, the bookies will make the other side an attractive side to bet on so it is balanced and that they can get profit afterwards regardless of who wins.

[Cryptoprincess101]

I believe bookmakers don’t actually predict who will win. Their job is to set the odds in a way that keeps things balanced, so they make a profit no matter who wins. We, the public or bettors, are the ones making predictions. We look at the odds, then decide which side to take based on our own analysis and whatever stats or info we have.

I agree with you because i think that bookies follow the judgement of bettor's prediction so the more bettor's bets towards a particular option the more the bookies adjust the odds to suit the prediction of bettors which means that most times they do not even care to check if there is a possibility for an event to work according to the arrangements of their odds. The gamblers are the people who spend time to analyze a match before betting but what marvels me sometimes is how the bookies will give a favorite odd to the side that weaker, i don't know if that also comes from the predictions of the bettors or the bookies feels like it is best that way or they just want to set confusion.

[Hispo]

I believe bookmakers don’t actually predict who will win. Their job is to set the odds in a way that keeps things balanced, so they make a profit no matter who wins. We, the public or bettors, are the ones making predictions. We look at the odds, then decide which side to take based on our own analysis and whatever stats or info we have.

Bookies pretty much all the do is to calculate the amount of profits each side could get according to the amount of money which is on one side or the other, in the end they will always win money, because they charge all bettors from entering their markets and access their liquidity, there are always some fees for participating, or at least is how traditional betting works. Casinos and bookies live on thanks to volume created by their customers, aka gamblers and bettors, they do not need to try to predict anything, they just need to offer a good market, good liquidity and reliable systems for one to withdraw money quickly.

They will be casinos and bookies which will get blinded by their greed and participate on their own markets, for the sake of getting big money, but that never ends up well for them and their bettors.

[Sticky Bomb]

The bookmarkers job is to set odds with respect to the advanced data available to them, that doesn't mean the games plays out exactly to their tune, NO. The odds they set is still another kind of prediction from their end based on their own analysis. When the actions kickstarts, some unforeseen circumstances might arise and turn around the dynamics of the game proving the bookmarkers wrong and in that situations those who placed bets against the bookmarker's predictions gets good profits. Bookmarkers still have a good possibility of being wrong and that's why we have people who still wins big from sports betting

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

In the UCL yesterday, the Barcelona vs PSG game, the home team was given a very lowered odds by bookmakers while PSG got a high odd size that was too good to be attractive to pick. Still PSG won the match 1:2, meanwhile many gamblers picked barcela who were tipped by bookmakers through the size of the odd to be winners.

The bookies always have their method of assigning odds to games and to some points, they also have their tool for predicting what the outcome of a game would be before they assigned odds based on the results they have come up with, they don't also fix the odds because when the game is not going in line with their odds, they can either increase or reduce it.

[Muba20]

Bookmakers don't know who will win but they try to set the odds. They set odds based on an assumption about the ability of a team's players. Sometimes the odds they set work the opposite way when a game starts. They try to set a team's chances by balancing them but that may not be the real odds. Sometimes the odds are very high depending on a good player. These odds are not the correct ones before the game and the odds can change at any time and under any circumstances.

[Judith87403]

I believe bookmakers don’t actually predict who will win. Their job is to set the odds in a way that keeps things balanced, so they make a profit no matter who wins. We, the public or bettors, are the ones making predictions. We look at the odds, then decide which side to take based on our own analysis and whatever stats or info we have.

Thanks for letting us know that the bookmakers don't Predict who will win, because Alot of people still don't understand this till this time. If you really want to know that the bookmakers don't Predict who will win just follow thier odds accordingly and then see how it goes, I have done this experiment couple of times yet I didn't get a positive result. It was loss loss then I realized that those odds are only fix then is left for we gamblers to make research to find the right odd, because those odds is not well arranged.

[letteredhub]

In the UCL yesterday, the Barcelona vs PSG game, the home team was given a very lowered odds by bookmakers while PSG got a high odd size that was too good to be attractive to pick. Still PSG won the match 1:2, meanwhile many gamblers picked barcela who were tipped by bookmakers through the size of the odd to be winners.

The bookies always have their method of assigning odds to games and to some points, they also have their tool for predicting what the outcome of a game would be before they assigned odds based on the results they have come up with, they don't also fix the odds because when the game is not going in line with their odds, they can either increase or reduce it.

It's not contending that bookmakers has such sophisticated tool giving them the algorithm to arrive at specific odds for specific games, they're even privy to insider information about the teams earlier than it could get to the knowledge of gamblers hence their many steps ahead of gamblers in changing and locking odds before and in an ongoing game.

[Felicity_Tide]

AFAIK, the work of bookmarkers is to carefully analyze the necessary and available stats, then use them in drafting how bettors would place their bet for a particular game. They try as much as possible to make so many odds available, base on different conditions. It is the duty of the bettor to now place a bet based on any odds that seem likely to occur.

2. Factors for which statistics are not yet collected or for which few people know. For example, hormonal changes in players' bodies that affect their performance. This especially affects women, for example, in tennis.

I doubt if all these stats are made available to bookmakers.
Take for example in football. A players fitness, like how long that player can last in a game should be confidential to the club that performed medicals on the player. I think there are already enough stats to create enough odds that bettors can choose from. How many odds do we even go for while betting.

[pawanjain]

And can we equate the two phrases "predicting the outcome of a game" and "setting the odds correctly"? But setting bookmaker odds "correctly" for an upcoming game doesn't mean predicting the outcome correctly. You, as a bookmaker, can set the odds "correctly," that is, rationally, in accordance with the available statistics, but the actual outcome of the match will contradict the advantage you set in the odds.
Why is this so? Because the actual outcome of a match is influenced not only by the statistics that have been collected, but also by:
1. Statistics that weren't collected for some reason, but were important for the outcome of the match (some minor factors that influenced the outcome of the match, which we consider "chance" or "luck").
2. Factors for which statistics are not yet collected or for which few people know. For example, hormonal changes in players' bodies that affect their performance. This especially affects women, for example, in tennis.
3. Factors that haven't even been formalized yet and are poorly understood. I can't give specific examples here for obvious reasons.

Isn't it obvious though ? The bookmaker is the one setting the odds based on known facts.
The gambler/better is the one who will be predicting the outcome and if the odds are in his favor based on his probability then he might proceed to bet on the same.
So both are completely different things and depending on the outcome of the game either of them is at profit and the other at loss.