Is the opacity of sports betting odds all about subtle psychology? Is it that "13/2" looks more interesting than "1:7.5", such that the fractional format obscures implied probability just enough to make longshots feel exciting and favourites feel less boring? And "5/1 = 5+1 = 6.0 decimal" feels like a multiplier (exciting!) rather than a clinical "16.7% probability" (sobering)? Would clean ratio notation make it too easy to compare the bookmaker's implied probability against one's own estimate, a calculation that immediately exposes their margin?
Peter Lynch's stock "10 bagger" means a 10× total return. In decimal odds that's just 10.0. The math is identical, but betting never converged on that framing. Most wagers are on heavy favourites at 1.15 or 1.30; perhaps saying "that's a 15% return" feels natural in finance but oddly small-sounding at the racetrack, so the fractional fog persists.
And it depends on where the racetrack is located! The US and Germany both use pari-mutuel betting (bets pooled, the track takes its cut, and winnings are divvied out), but the US tote board shows "5" meaning 5-to-1 whilst Germany shows decimals. Britain (and Ireland) is a baffling fractional ordeal: "Evens" instead of 1/1 (they don't even bother writing it as a fraction), "11/10", "6/4", "5/4" are awkward fractions that nobody would ever naturally express that way. 6/4 is just 1.5, or 3:2. "SP" (Starting Price) are the official odds at race start, set by a committee of on-course bookmakers ... a completely opaque process invisible to the bettor. All three systems describe the same underlying probability, all three in different dialects, none of them in the clean ratio format for which any reasonably numerically literate person would naturally reach.
Behavioural finance research shows that people are genuinely poor at converting between equivalent probability formats, but whether that's a human cognitive limitation or a carefully engineered feature is left as an exercise for the reader.
Newer online formats appear to be quietly closing the gap. Prediction markets quote contracts at $0.20 for a $1 payout, which is a clean 5× multiplier, instantly legible to any investor. US moneyline odds (+500, -150) at least anchor to a $100 reference (a bit like bond pricing). Betfair traders talk about "value" and "ROI" as any fund manager would.
The reason why betting odds are reported the way they are is historic convention. Remember that in the UK we used to have pounds, shillings, etc., and that meant that you had to quote odds in x pounds, y shillings, and z pence. And that just doesn’t lend itself to decimal odds. So betting odds have stuck with the old imperial system even though it no longer makes any sense.
It’s a little bit like quoting US Treasuries in eighths of a dollar…
Don’t know whether to be pleased that Scotland finally make it out of the group stage, or frustrated that you’ve got us going out to South Korea in the round of 32. Still, you redeem yourself by having our lovely neighbours get properly gubbed in the semis.
Remember: no Scotland, no party… and, alas, no real chance either.
PS: At work I sit opposite two people from Aberdeen. I could never let England get anywhere near that trophy even if my German heritage would allow me to do that (which it doesn’t; we still think we were robbed in 1966).
how about a companion piece on world cup tourism economics?
will fervent fans with foreign accents and darker skin risk travel and stay in america? or will they only attend matches in canada and mexico?
can local sales compensate for the total hit in hotels, restaurants, etc?
on a related piece, trump cut funding for the a group forecasting safety risks for large events, some arena unions are threatening to strike, and the gop has halted their broadcast commercials on immigration propaganda.
🥔 potato Field :)
I have seldom followed, much less understood, sports, so your piece is genuinely enlightening. That said, something on the front page stopped me cold:
"What the bookies say: Spain 5/1, France 6/1, England 13/2, Argentina 17/2"
Why aren't sports odds reported like those in investment, science, or medicine?
1:1 = even money for a fair coin flip
1:6 = Spain winning, as shown above
1:7,700 = a €2 coin landing on its edge https://substack.com/@gunnarmiller/note/c-239750473
1:100,000 = chance of a drug side effect
Is the opacity of sports betting odds all about subtle psychology? Is it that "13/2" looks more interesting than "1:7.5", such that the fractional format obscures implied probability just enough to make longshots feel exciting and favourites feel less boring? And "5/1 = 5+1 = 6.0 decimal" feels like a multiplier (exciting!) rather than a clinical "16.7% probability" (sobering)? Would clean ratio notation make it too easy to compare the bookmaker's implied probability against one's own estimate, a calculation that immediately exposes their margin?
Peter Lynch's stock "10 bagger" means a 10× total return. In decimal odds that's just 10.0. The math is identical, but betting never converged on that framing. Most wagers are on heavy favourites at 1.15 or 1.30; perhaps saying "that's a 15% return" feels natural in finance but oddly small-sounding at the racetrack, so the fractional fog persists.
And it depends on where the racetrack is located! The US and Germany both use pari-mutuel betting (bets pooled, the track takes its cut, and winnings are divvied out), but the US tote board shows "5" meaning 5-to-1 whilst Germany shows decimals. Britain (and Ireland) is a baffling fractional ordeal: "Evens" instead of 1/1 (they don't even bother writing it as a fraction), "11/10", "6/4", "5/4" are awkward fractions that nobody would ever naturally express that way. 6/4 is just 1.5, or 3:2. "SP" (Starting Price) are the official odds at race start, set by a committee of on-course bookmakers ... a completely opaque process invisible to the bettor. All three systems describe the same underlying probability, all three in different dialects, none of them in the clean ratio format for which any reasonably numerically literate person would naturally reach.
Behavioural finance research shows that people are genuinely poor at converting between equivalent probability formats, but whether that's a human cognitive limitation or a carefully engineered feature is left as an exercise for the reader.
Newer online formats appear to be quietly closing the gap. Prediction markets quote contracts at $0.20 for a $1 payout, which is a clean 5× multiplier, instantly legible to any investor. US moneyline odds (+500, -150) at least anchor to a $100 reference (a bit like bond pricing). Betfair traders talk about "value" and "ROI" as any fund manager would.
That said, I come from an ancestry which frowns upon dancing and playing cards, much less gambling https://gunnarmiller.substack.com/p/my-fathers-side-of-the-family , so perhaps I should just shut up and watch guys kick a ball around ;-)
The reason why betting odds are reported the way they are is historic convention. Remember that in the UK we used to have pounds, shillings, etc., and that meant that you had to quote odds in x pounds, y shillings, and z pence. And that just doesn’t lend itself to decimal odds. So betting odds have stuck with the old imperial system even though it no longer makes any sense.
It’s a little bit like quoting US Treasuries in eighths of a dollar…
If someone told me they’re putting everything on that team i’d feel sorry for them……. until u posted this 😄.
One guaranteed prediction: England will be knocked out in the quarter finals (after getting everyone's hopes up).
Haha!
Don’t know whether to be pleased that Scotland finally make it out of the group stage, or frustrated that you’ve got us going out to South Korea in the round of 32. Still, you redeem yourself by having our lovely neighbours get properly gubbed in the semis.
Remember: no Scotland, no party… and, alas, no real chance either.
You are welcome. But honestly, you can still have a good party as long as you got some Irish fans around. Alas, they didn’t qualify this time 😢
PS: At work I sit opposite two people from Aberdeen. I could never let England get anywhere near that trophy even if my German heritage would allow me to do that (which it doesn’t; we still think we were robbed in 1966).
is the truth
SKorea is a strong team!
how about a companion piece on world cup tourism economics?
will fervent fans with foreign accents and darker skin risk travel and stay in america? or will they only attend matches in canada and mexico?
can local sales compensate for the total hit in hotels, restaurants, etc?
on a related piece, trump cut funding for the a group forecasting safety risks for large events, some arena unions are threatening to strike, and the gop has halted their broadcast commercials on immigration propaganda.
Something like that is coming a week before the World Cup. Just more general and not specified for the current World Cup
Ronaldo is not touching that world cup loool suiiii
Im trying to find the 2014 and 2018 World Cup final prediction but I can’t find it
I know. I did them for a previous employer and they have been taken down from the internet. Sorry.
Who is the favourite in 2026 world Cup?
It’s alright, thanks for telling me!