经济与社会科学2017arxiv.org
战胜博彩公司：在线体育博彩市场如何被操纵
Beating the bookies – how the online sports betting market is rigged
入门 · 约 30 分钟读完前置知识：概率与赔率基础、体育博彩运作方式
导读
这篇论文研究在线体育博彩市场是否存在系统性偏差：研究者基于博彩公司公开赔率构建了一个简单策略，用真金白银下注，数月内实现约 44% 的收益率并盈利约 900 美元。但几周后多家博彩公司开始严格限制他们的账户，迫使他们停止策略，作者据此认为博彩市场对普通玩家并不公平。
HN 关注点：博彩公司是否会限制赢家、这种做法是否算'操纵市场'，以及论文证据是否足够支撑其结论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 亲历 2
亲历赌场限制赢家是常态，与论文描述的现象一致
我学会算牌、在二十一点上获得一点小优势后，最沮丧的发现是：赌场在你赢得太多时会直接请你离开。这给赢钱速度设了上限。研究老虎机的人日子好过些，因为赌场要更久才能发现自己在亏钱。
ChuckMcM查看英文原文
"Send enquires about this paper to our newly acquired private island in the Bahamas." :-) One of the most depressing things I realized when I learned to count cards, and confer upon myself a small but meaningful advantage in the game of Blackjack, was that the casinos simply ask you to leave if you win too much. That put an upper limit on the rate at which one could win. The folks who figure out slot machines have a much better time of it because it takes longer for the casinos to figure out they are losing money.
质疑质疑论文证据：900 美元太小，截图只涉及冷门联赛，不足以证明被针对性限制
这事背后应该另有隐情，我想听听博彩公司的说法。也许研究者触发了某种安全警报。总共才赢 900 美元还分散在多家公司，对体育博彩行业来说微不足道。William Hill 是市值数十亿美元的公司，不会在意这种小赌注。另外，他们截图证明被限制的赌注是澳大利亚半职业足球这类冷门联赛，这类比赛本来限额就低，不足以证明博彩公司全面降低了限额。
utnick查看英文原文
There has to be more to this story. I would like to hear the bookmakers side of this. Perhaps the researchers were scripting or triggered some other kind of security tripwire. Winning $900 split across several different bookmakers is absolutely nothing in the sports betting industry. William Hill, one of the companies that the researchers claim restricted them is a multi billion dollar company. They aren't sweating small time bets like this. EDIT: I noticed that the screenshots they used as proof their bets were restricted are for bets on very minor football leagues (Australian semi pro football), its common for betting limits to be lower for games that don't see a lot of betting action & is not proof enough to me that the bookmakers lowered their limits globally
亲历分享亲历：利用模型盲区（伤病、地域偏差）确实能稳定盈利
我一直在做网球博彩，唯一持续有效的策略是找受伤球员并押注他们输。模型不看比赛，所以受伤球员可能被高估。英国球员也常被高估，因为博彩公司总部在英国。回报最高的策略就是押注受伤的热门球员输球，不过这需要大量看比赛，也许可以雇人在 Mechanical Turk 上帮我盯球员是否受伤。
soniman查看英文原文
I've been trying my luck at tennis betting ( https://matchstat.com/profile/soniman ) and the only strategy that seems to work consistently is finding injured players and betting against them. Good example of an injured player is a player that limps (Andy Murray at Wimbledon this year). The computers don't watch matches so injured players can be overvalued by the models. Also, any British tennis player tends to be overvalued because the books are based in the UK. For instance there is an overweight British player named Marcus Willis that last week was a 1.01 favorite to win at a tournament in Las Vegas; he lost, apparently due to dizziness aka being fat. There are some other patterns that can be exploited but the highest return strategy has to be betting against injured favorites. However, I think that would probably require more tennis watching than I want to do. Maybe I could hire somebody on Mechanical Turk to watch tennis for me and report on players who appear to be injured or take medical time outs.
质疑限制赢家是百年老套路，质疑'rigged'一词是否恰当
博彩公司限制赢家是老套路了。《股票作手回忆录》里讲的 20 世纪初的 bucket shop 就是这么干的，市场微观结构教材里做市商对付知情交易者也是类似逻辑。'rigged'这个词用得对吗？博彩公司有义务一直接受你的赌注吗？这和说赌场'被操纵'有区别吗？
conistonwater查看英文原文
> A few weeks after we started trading with actual money some bookmakers began to severely limit our accounts, forcing us to stop our betting strategy. Isn't this like literally one of the oldest tricks in the book? I remember reading Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, which talks in part about early 1900's bucket shops, and the same stuff was there even then. Similar stuff is also mentioned in market microstructure textbooks with market makers on one side and informed traders on the other side. Is rigged even the right word here? It might be, but did the bookmakers have a responsibility to keep accepting their bets? Is it different from claiming that casinos are rigged?
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2017Hacker News 讨论帖242 分 · 155 评
- 2024Hacker News 讨论帖72 分 · 58 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选