ArticleJournal of gambling studies2023
Betting on Australian Rules Football: Can Expert Tipsters beat Randomness?
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Betting on the various codes of football in Australia accounts for the majority of sports betting, with Australian rules football (AFL) by far the most popular sport in Australia. Several studies have revealed the heavy presence of gambling advertising during AFL broadcasts, and a frequently used advertising strategy involves the use of well-known AFL commentators outlining their tips and betting suggestions. To date, no research has examined the hypotheses that skill may help in predicting AFL matches and monetary outcomes from AFL betting. Rather than merely discounting such ideas, it is important to test them empirically. The aims of this study were therefore, to examine if (1) expert AFL tipsters made better predictions than random picks, (2) expert AFL tipsters gained greater monetary reward than random selection, and (3) expert tipsters' prediction accuracy improved with betting experience. To this end, six seasons of AFL matches, odds data, and expert tipster data were analysed retrospectively, totalling 1141 matches. Random selections were calculated for each match using an inbuilt random number generator within Microsoft Excel and a $2 simulated wager was applied for each AFL match. The results of mixed-effects modelling showed that experts picked more correct outcomes than random selection; experts' correct predictions were partially mediated by home-game selections; no difference in monetary outcome was observed for experts compared to random selection; experts' predictions did not improve over time. The results of this study may be used to inform both psychological interventions that target gamblers' illusions of control, and public health gambling harm prevention messaging.
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.