ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2012
Effects of expertise on football betting.
Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Betting on Australian Rules Football: Can Expert Tipsters beat Randomness?Journal of gambling studies · 2023Article
- Conceptualising emotional and cognitive dysregulation amongst sports bettors; an exploratory study of 'tilting' in a new context.PloS one · 2022Article
- Predicting Seasonal Performance in Professional Sport: A 30-Year Analysis of Sports Illustrated Predictions.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Between two worlds: Exploring esports betting in relation to problem gambling, gaming, and mental health problems.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2021Article
- Why Do Individuals Engage in In-Play Sports Betting? A Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of gambling studies · 2021Article
- Perspective of Internet Poker Players on Harm-Reduction Strategies: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Rise of the Machines: A Critical Review on the Behavioural Effects of Automating Traditional Gambling Games.Journal of gambling studies · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFootball (soccer) is one of the most popular sports in the world, including Europe. It is associated with important betting activities. A common belief, widely spread among those who participate in gambling activities, is that knowledge and expertise on football lead to better prediction skills for match outcomes. If unfounded, however, this belief should be considered as a form of "illusion of control." The aim of this study was to examine whether football experts are better than nonexperts at predicting football match scores.
methodsTwo hundred and fifty-eight persons took part in the study: 21.3% as football experts, 54.3% as laypersons (non-initiated to football), and 24.4% as football amateurs. They predicted the scores of the first 10 matches of the 2008 UEFA European Football Championship. Logistic regressions were carried out to assess the link between the accuracy of the forecasted scores and the expertise of the participants (expert, amateur, layperson), controlling for age and gender.
resultsThe variables assessed did not predict the accuracy of scoring prognosis (R2 ranged from 1% to 6%).
conclusionsExpertise, 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.