Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Mathematics of bookmaking
View on WikipediaThis article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (February 2012) |
In gambling parlance, making a book is the practice of laying bets on the various possible outcomes of a single event. The phrase originates from the practice of recording such wagers in a hard-bound ledger (the "book") and gives the English language the term bookmaker for the person laying the bets and thus "making the book".[1]: 6 [2]: 13, 36 The mathematical basis of bookmaking is the management of risk through price adjustment.
Fundamentals of bookmaking
[edit]Traditional models assume a static market where odds are set based on estimated probabilities and a fixed margin. A bookmaker strives to accept bets on the outcome of an event in the right proportions in order to make a profit regardless of which outcome prevails.[3] See Dutch book theorems.
This is achieved primarily by adjusting what are determined to be the true odds of the various outcomes of an event in a downward fashion; the bookmaker pays out using actual odds that are lower than the "fair" value, thus ensuring a profit.[4] While these fixed models provide the basis for betting arithmetic, modern dynamic bookmaking (often utilized in online environments) utilizes real-time data feeds and risk-management algorithms to adjust odds continuously as wagers are placed to manage the bookmaker's exposure.
The odds quoted for a particular event may be fixed but are more likely to fluctuate in order to take account of the size of wagers placed by the bettors in the run-up to the actual event (e.g., a horse race). This article explains the mathematics of making a book in the (simpler) case of the former event. For the second method, see parimutuel betting.
Odds and implied probabilities
[edit]The relationship between fractional and decimal odds is a fundamental component of bookmaking arithmetic. Fractional odds are expressed as (or ), where a winning bettor receives their stake back plus units for every units wagered. Decimal odds () represent a single value greater than 1, indicating the total payout per unit bet.
The formula to convert fractional odds to decimal odds is:
For example, a wager of £40 at 6 − 4 (fractional) results in a payout of . The equivalent decimal odds are 2.5 (). Conversely, fractional odds of (where ) are obtained from decimal odds via .
Implied probabilities represent the theoretical likelihood of an outcome as suggested by the quoted odds. Fractional odds of correspond to an implied probability () of:
For example, 6–4 odds correspond to (40%). An implied probability of is represented by fractional odds of . Thus, a probability of 0.2 is expressed as (4–1), with decimal odds of .
Overround
[edit]In considering a football match (the event) that can be either a "home win", "draw" or "away win" (the outcomes) then the following odds might be encountered to represent the true chance of each of the three outcomes:
- Home: Evens
- Draw: 2-1
- Away: 5-1
These odds can be represented as implied probabilities (or percentages by multiplying by 100) as follows:
- Evens (or 1-1) corresponds to an implied probability of 1⁄2 (50%)
- 2-1 corresponds to an implied probability of 1⁄3 (331⁄3%)
- 5-1 corresponds to an implied probability of 1⁄6 (162⁄3%)
By adding the percentages together a total "book" of 100% is achieved (representing a fair book). The bookmaker will reduce these odds to ensure a profit. Consider the simplest model of reducing, which uses a proportional decreasing of odds. For the above example, the following odds are in the same proportion with regard to their implied probabilities (3:2:1):
- Home: 4-6
- Draw: 6-4
- Away: 4-1
- 4-6 corresponds to an implied probability of 3⁄5 (60%)
- 6-4 corresponds to an implied probability of 2⁄5 (40%)
- 4-1 corresponds to an implied probability of 1⁄5 (20%)
By adding these percentages together a "book" of 120% is achieved.
The amount by which the actual "book" exceeds 100% is known as the "overround",[1]: 96–104 [2]: 126–130 "bookmaker margin"[4] or the "vigorish" or "vig"[4] and represents the bookmaker's expected profit. Thus, in an "ideal" situation, if the bookmaker accepts £120 in bets at his own quoted odds in the correct proportion, he will pay out only £100 (including returned stakes) no matter the actual outcome of the football match. Examining how he potentially achieves this:
- A stake of £60.00 @ 4-6 returns £100.00 (exactly) for a home win.
- A stake of £40.00 @ 6-4 returns £100.00 (exactly) for a drawn match
- A stake of £20.00 @ 4-1 returns £100.00 (exactly) for an away win
Total stakes received are £120.00 with a maximum payout of £100.00 irrespective of the result. This £20.00 profit represents a 162⁄3 % profit on turnover (20.00/120.00).
In reality, bookmakers use models of reducing that are more complicated than this model of the "ideal" situation.
Bookmaker margin in English football leagues
[edit]Bookmaker margin in English football leagues decreased in recent years.[5] A study of six large bookmakers between the 2005/06 season and 2017/2018 season showed that average margin in Premier League decreased from 9% to 4%, in English Football League Championship, English Football League One, and English Football League Two from 11% to 6%, and in National League from 11% to 8%.
Payout calculation and practice
[edit]Settling winning bets in general
[edit]In settling winning bets, either decimal odds are used, or one is added to the fractional odds. This is to include the stake in the return. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately from the win part; the method is identical but the odds are reduced by whatever the place factor is for the particular event (see Accumulator below for detailed example). All bets are taken as "win" bets unless "each-way" is specifically stated. All show use of fractional odds: replace (fractional odds + 1) by decimal odds if decimal odds are known. Non-runners are treated as winners with fractional odds of zero (decimal odds of 1). Fractions of pence in total winnings are invariably rounded down by bookmakers to the nearest penny below. Calculations below for multiple-bet wagers result in totals being shown for the separate categories (e.g. doubles, trebles etc.), and therefore overall returns may not be exactly the same as the amount received from using the computer software available to bookmakers to calculate total winnings.[1]: 138–147 [2]: 163–177
- E.g. £100 single at 9 − 2; total staked = £100. Returns = £100 × (9/2 + 1) = £100 × 5.5 = £550.
- E.g. £100 each-way single at 11 − 4 ( 1⁄5 odds a place); total staked = £200. Returns (win) = £100 × (11/4 + 1) = £100 × 3.75 = £375. Returns (place) = £100 × (11/20 + 1) = £100 × 1.55 = £155. Total returns if selection wins = £530; if only placed = £155.
Multiple bets and accumulators
[edit]When a punter (bettor) combines more than one selection in, for example, a double, treble or accumulator bet, then the effect of the overround in the book of each selection is compounded. This is to the detriment of the punter in terms of the financial return compared to the true odds of all of the selections winning and thus resulting in a successful bet.
For example, consider a double made by selecting the winners from two tennis matches:
In Match 1 between players A and B, both players are assessed to have an equal chance of winning. The situation is the same in Match 2 between players C and D. In a fair book in each of their matches, i.e. each has a book of 100%, all players would be offered at odds of Evens (1-1). However, a bookmaker would probably offer odds of 5-6 (for example) on each of the two possible outcomes in each event (each tennis match). This results in a book for each of the tennis matches of 109.09...%, calculated by 100 × (6⁄11 + 6⁄11) i.e. 9.09% overround.
There are four possible outcomes from combining the results from both matches: the winning pair of players could be AC, AD, BC or BD. As each of the outcomes for this example have been deliberately chosen to ensure that they are equally likely, the probability of each outcome occurring is 1⁄4 or 0.25, and the fractional odds against each one occurring is 3-1. A bet of 100 units on any of the four combinations would produce a return of 100 × (3/1 + 1) = 400 units if successful, reflecting decimal odds of 4.0.
The decimal odds of a multiple bet is often calculated by multiplying the decimal odds of the individual bets, the idea being that if the events are independent then the implied probability should be the product of the implied probabilities of the individual bets. In the above case with fractional odds of 5 − 6, the decimal odds are 11⁄6. So the decimal odds of the double bet is 11⁄6×11⁄6 = 1.833...×1.833... = 3.3611..., or fractional odds of 2.3611 − 1. This represents an implied probability of 29.752% (1/3.3611) and multiplying by 4 (for each of the four equally likely combinations of outcomes) gives a total book of 119.01%. Thus the overround has slightly more than doubled by combining two single bets into a double.
In general, the combined overround on a double (OD), expressed as a percentage, is calculated from the individual books B1 and B2, expressed as decimals, by OD = B1 × B2 × 100 - 100. In the example we have OD = 1.0909 × 1.0909 × 100 - 100 = 19.01%.
This massive increase in potential profit for the bookmaker (19% instead of 9% on an event; in this case the double) is the main reason why bookmakers pay bonuses for the successful selection of winners in multiple bets. Compare offering a 25% bonus on the correct choice of four winners from four selections in a Yankee, for example, when the potential overround on a simple fourfold of races with individual books of 120% is over 107% (a book of 207%). This is why bookmakers offer bets such as Lucky 15, Lucky 31 and Lucky 63, offering double the odds for one winner and increasing percentage bonuses for two, three and more winners.
In general, for any accumulator bet from two to i selections, the combined percentage overround of books of B1, B2, ..., Bi given in terms of decimals, is calculated by B1 × B2 × ... × Bi × 100 - 100. E.g. the previously mentioned fourfold consisting of individual books of 120% (1.20) gives an overround of 1.20 × 1.20 × 1.20 × 1.20 × 100 − 100 = 107.36%.
Settlement methods for multiples
[edit]Each-way multiple bets are usually settled using a default "Win to Win, Place to Place" method, meaning that the bet consists of a win accumulator and a separate place accumulator (Note: a double or treble is an accumulator with 2 or 3 selections respectively). However, a more uncommon way of settling these type of bets is "Each-Way all Each-Way" (known as "Equally Divided", which must normally be requested as such on the betting slip) in which the returns from one selection in the accumulator are split to form an equal-stake each-way bet on the next selection and so on until all selections have been used.[1]: 155–156 [2]: 170–171 The first example below shows the two different approaches to settling these types of bets.
- E.g. £100 each-way double with winners at 2-1 ( 1⁄5 odds a place) and 5-4 ( 1⁄4 odds a place); total staked = £200.
- "Win to Win, Place to Place":
- Returns (win double) = £100 × (2/1 + 1) × (5/4 + 1) = £675
- Returns (place double) = £100 × (2/5 + 1) × (5/16 + 1) = £183.75
- Total returns = £858.75.
- "Each-Way all Each-Way":
- Returns (first selection) = £100 × (2/1 + 1) + £100 × (2/5 + 1) = £440 which is split equally to give a £220 each-way bet on the second selection)
- Returns (second selection) = £220 × (5/4 + 1) + £220 × (5/16 + 1) = £783.75
- Total returns = £783.85.
- Note: "Win to Win, Place to Place" will always provide a greater return if all selections win, whereas "Each-Way all Each-Way" provides greater compensation if one selection is a loser as each of the other winners provide a greater amount of place money for subsequent selections.
- Note: "All up to win" means there are insufficient participants in the event for place odds to be given (e.g. 4 or fewer runners in a horse race). The only "place" therefore is first place, for which the win odds are given.
- Returns (win fivefold) = £100 × (1/1 + 1) × (11/8 + 1) × (5/4 + 1) × (1/2 + 1) × (3/1 + 1) = £6412.50 Returns (place fivefold) = £100 × (1/4 + 1) × (11/40 + 1) × (5/16 + 1) × (1/2 + 1) × (3/5 + 1) = £502.03 Total returns = £6914.53
Full-cover bets
[edit]Trixie, Yankee, Canadian, Heinz, Super Heinz and Goliath form a family of bets known as full cover bets which have all possible multiples present. Examples of winning Trixie and Yankee bets have been shown above. The other named bets are calculated in a similar way by looking at all the possible combinations of selections in their multiples. Note: A Double may be thought of as a full cover bet with only two selections.
Should a selection in one of these bets not win, then the remaining winners are treated as being a wholly successful bet on the next "family member" down. For example, only two winners out of three in a Trixie means the bet is settled as a double; only four winners out of five in a Canadian means it is settled as a Yankee; only five winners out of eight in a Goliath means it is settled as a Canadian. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately using reduced place odds. Thus, an each-way Super Heinz on seven horses with three winners and a further two placed horses is settled as a win Trixie and a place Canadian. Virtually all bookmakers use computer software for ease, speed and accuracy of calculation for the settling of multiples bets.
- E.g. £10 Trixie with winners at 4-7, 2-1 and 11-10; total staked = £40.
- Returns (3 doubles) = £10 × [(4/7 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) + (4/7 + 1) × (11/10 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) × (11/10 + 1)] = £143.14
- Returns (1 treble) = £10 × (4/7 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) × (11/10 + 1) = £99.00
- Total returns = £242.14
- E.g. £10 Yankee with winners at 1-3, 5-2, 6-4 and Evens; total staked = £110
- Returns (6 doubles) = £10 × [(1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1)] = £314.16
- Returns (4 trebles) = £10 × [(1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1)] = £451.66
- Returns (1 fourfold) = £10 × (1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) = £233.33
- Total returns = £999.15
Full cover bets with singles
[edit]Patent, Lucky 15, Lucky 31, Lucky 63 and higher Lucky bets form a family of bets known as full cover bets with singles which have all possible multiples present together with single bets on all selections. An examples of a winning Patent bet has been shown above. The other named bets are calculated in a similar way by looking at all the possible combinations of selections in their multiples and singles.
Should a selection in one of these bets not win, then the remaining winners are treated as being a wholly successful bet on the next "family member" down. For example, only two winners out of three in a Patent means the bet is settled as a double and two singles; only three winners out of four in a Lucky 15 means it is settled as a Patent; only four winners out of six in a Lucky 63 means it is settled as a Lucky 15. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately using reduced place odds. Thus, an each-way Lucky 63 on six horses with three winners and a further two placed horses is settled as a win Patent and a place Lucky 31.
- E.g. £2 Patent with winners at 4-6, 2-1 and 11-4; total staked = £14
- Returns (3 singles) = £2 × [(4/6 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) + (11/4 + 1)] = £16.83
- Returns (3 doubles) = £2 × [(4/6 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) + (4/6 + 1) × (11/4 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) × (11/4 + 1)] = £45.00
- Returns (1 treble) = £2 × (4/6 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) × (11/4 + 1) = £37.50
- Total returns = £99.33
Settling other types of winning bets
[edit]- E.g. £20 Up and Down with winners at 7-2 and 15-8; total staked = £40
- Returns (£20 single at 7-2 ATC £20 single at 15-8) = £20 × 7/2 + £20 × (15/8 + 1) = £127.50
- Returns (£20 single at 15-8 ATC £20 single at 7-2) = £20 × 15/8 + £20 × (7/2 + 1) = £127.50
- Total returns = £255.00
- Note: This is the same as two £20 single bets at twice the odds; i.e. £20 singles at 7-1 and 15-4 and is the preferred manual way of calculating the bet.
- E.g. £10 Up and Down with a winner at 5-1 and a loser; total staked = £20
- Returns (£10 single at 5-1 ATC £10 single on "loser") = £10 × 5/1 = £50
- Note: This calculation of a bet where the stake is not returned is called "receiving the odds to the stake" on the winner; in this case receiving the odds to £10 (on the 5-1 winner).
- A Round Robin with 3 winners is calculated as a Trixie plus three Up and Down bets with 2 winners in each.
- A Round Robin with 2 winners is calculated as a double plus one Up and Down bet with 2 winners plus two Up and Down bets with 1 winner in each.
- A Round Robin with 1 winner is calculated as two Up and Down bets with one winner in each.
- Note: Expert bet settlers before the introduction of bet-settling software would have invariably used an algebraic-type method together with a simple calculator to determine the return on a bet (see below).
Algebraic interpretation
[edit]Returns on a wager are calculated as the product of the "stake unit" and an "odds multiplier" (OM). The overall OM is a combined decimal odds value representing the sum of all individual bets within a complex wager, such as a full-cover bet. For example, if a successful £10 Yankee returns £461.35, the overall OM is 46.135.
If represent the decimal odds (fractional odds + 1) of the selections, the OM is calculated by expanding the product of the expressions and adjusting for the specific bet type. Prior to the widespread use of automated settlement software, these algebraic methods were the primary means of manual calculation in betting offices.[1]: 166 [2]: 169, 176
Full-cover bet models
[edit]For a Patent (three selections including singles, doubles, and a treble), the OM is derived from the expansion of , which equals . Thus:
For a Yankee (four selections excluding singles), the formula is adjusted to subtract the individual selections:
Conditional and specialized models
[edit]For specialized bets involving "Any-To-Come" (ATC) or "Up and Down" conditions, the OM accounts for re-staking winnings across selections:
Up and Down (2 selections):
Round Robin (3 selections):
Flag (4 selections):
Online and algorithmic bookmaking
[edit]Transition to dynamic markets
[edit]The shift from traditional betting shops to online platforms, such as bet365, Betfair, and Pinnacle Sports, has redefined the bookmaker's role as an active market maker. In online environments, odds are no longer static; they are updated continuously in response to incoming wagers and evolving market information. This dynamic environment is often modeled using frameworks from online learning and sequential decision making, where the house must balance profit maximization with the need to manage real-time risk exposure.
Research frameworks
[edit]Recent mathematical research has explored various algorithmic approaches to online bookmaking:
- Adversarial Minimax Modeling: This framework models bookmaking as a repeated game between the house and an adversarial gambler representing the aggregate market. The setup typically involves an event with possible outcomes and a time horizon of betting rounds. In each round , the bookmaker offers a set of payoffs, and the market responds by placing a wager. The house's objective is to minimize its worst-case loss, or regret, regardless of the final outcome or the gambler's strategy.[6]
- Stochastic Control: Some models treat the arrival of bets as a Poisson process. The bookmaker seeks to maximize the expected utility of their wealth over time by adjusting odds based on current inventory and the intensity of incoming bets via stochastic control and the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation.[7]
- Profit versus Prediction: Other studies analyze the trade-off between maximizing bookmaker profit and eliciting accurate information, such as in prediction markets. While prediction markets aim for price efficiency, for-profit bookmakers often maximize returns by exploiting deviations between the true probability of an event and the distribution of bettor beliefs.[8]
Performance bounds and hermite polynomials
[edit]In algorithmic bookmaking, regret measures the difference between the house's actual payout after rounds and the payout it would have achieved if it had known the total betting distribution in hindsight.
- Regret Bounds: For an event with outcomes and betting rounds, an optimal pricing algorithm can ensure that the house's regret grows at a rate of .
- Connection to Hermite Polynomials: The scaling factor for the optimal bookmaking regret is fundamentally linked to Hermite polynomials. Specifically, for any event with possible outcomes, the asymptotic scaling factor of the bookmaker's regret is determined by the largest root of the -th probabilistic Hermite polynomial.[9]
Opportunistic strategies and the pareto frontier
[edit]While minimax strategies protect against a "worst-case" gambler who places all their stake on a single outcome (decisive betting), real-world market wagers are often distributed across multiple outcomes. Modern algorithms use opportunistic strategies to exploit these suboptimal, non-decisive betting patterns.
- Bellman-Pareto Frontier: The algorithm tracks a state vector of committed payouts. By characterizing the Bellman-Pareto frontier—the set of all future payout vectors that cannot be improved for one outcome without worsening another—the house can dynamically adjust odds to capture extra profit when betting is poorly distributed.
- Water-filling Mechanism: This approach functions similarly to a water-filling algorithm; when gamblers place non-decisive bets, the algorithm lowers the "water level" (the maximum guaranteed payout across all outcomes), allowing the house to outperform the theoretical worst-case bound.[9]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e Sidney, Charles (1976). The Art of Legging. Maxline International.
- ^ a b c d e Sidney, Charles (2003). The Art of Legging: The History, Theory, and Practice of Bookmaking on the English Turf (3rd ed.). Rotex Publishing.
- ^ Itzkowitz, David C. (1988). "Victorian Bookmakers and Their Customers". Victorian Studies. 32 (1): 7–30. ISSN 0042-5222. JSTOR 3828287.
- ^ a b c Cortis, Dominic (2015). "Expected Values and variance in bookmaker payouts: A Theoretical Approach towards setting limits on odds". Journal of Prediction Markets. 1. 9: 1–14. doi:10.5750/jpm.v9i1.987.
- ^ Marek, Patrice (September 2018). "Bookmakers' Efficiency in English Football Leagues". Mathematical Methods in Economics - Conference Proceedings: 330–335.
- ^ Bhatt, A; Ordentlich, O; Sabag, O (2025). "Optimal online bookmaking for binary games". arXiv:2501.06923 [cs.GT].
- ^ Lorig, Matthew; Zhou, Zhou; Zou, Bin (2021). "Optimal bookmaking". European Journal of Operational Research. 295 (2): 560–574. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.005.
- ^ Zhu, Haiqing; Soen, Alexander; Cheung, Yun Kuen; Xie, Lexing (2024). "Online learning in betting markets: Profit versus prediction". Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.
- ^ a b Tal, Hadar; Sabag, Oron (2025). "Optimal Online Bookmaking for Any Number of Outcomes". Proceedings of Thirty Eighth Conference on Learning Theory. The Thirty Eighth Conference on Learning Theory. Vol. 291. PMLR. pp. 5356–5409. arXiv:2506.16253.
Further reading
[edit]- "Finding an Edge", Ron Loftus, US-SC-North Charleston: Create Space., 2011, 144pp.
- "How to make a book", Phil Bull, London: Morrison & Gibb Ltd., 1948, 160pp.
- "The book on bookmaking", Ferde Rombola, California: Romford Press, 1984, 147pp. ISBN 978-0-935536-37-9.
- The Art of Bookmaking, Malcolm Boyle, High Stakes Publishing 2006.
- Secrets of Successful Betting, Michael Adams, Raceform, 2002.
- The Mathematics of Games and Gambling, Edward W. Packel, Mathematical Association of America, 2006.
- The Mathematics of Gambling, Edward O. Thorp, L. Stuart, 1984.
- "Maximin Hedges", Jean-Claude Derderian, Mathematics Magazine, volume 51, number 3. (May, 1978), pages 188–192.
- "Carnap and de Finetti on Bets and the Probability of Singular Events: The Dutch Book Argument Reconsidered" Klaus Heilig, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, volume 29, number 4. (December, 1978), pages 325–346.
- "Tests of the Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Using Bookmaker Odds", Ron Bird, Michael McCrae, Management Science, volume 33, number 12 (December, 1987), pages 152–156.
- "Why is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets", Leighton Vaughan Williams, David Paton. The Economic Journal, volume 107, number 440 (January, 1997), pages 150–158.
- Optimal Determination of Bookmakers' Betting Odds: Theory and Tests, by John Fingleton and Patrick Waldron, Trinity Economic Paper Series, Technical Paper No. 96/9, Trinity College, University of Dublin, 1999.
- "Odds That Don't Add Up!", Mike Fletcher, Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 1994, volume 13, number 4, pages 145–147.
- "Information, Prices and Efficiency in a Fixed-Odds Betting Market", Peter F. Pope, David A. Peel, Economica, New Series, volume 56, number 223, (August, 1989), pages 323–341.
- "A Mathematical Perspective on Gambling", Molly Maxwell, MIT Undergraduate Journal of Mathematics, volume 1, (1999), pages 123–132.
- "Probability Guide to Gambling: The Mathematics of dice, slots, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, poker, lottery and sport bets", Catalin Barboianu, Infarom, 2006, 316pp. ISBN 973-87520-3-5.
Mathematics of bookmaking
View on GrokipediaFundamentals of Odds and Bookmaking
Odds Formats and Conversions
In bookmaking, odds are expressed in various formats depending on the region and tradition, with fractional, decimal, and moneyline being the most common. These formats all convey the same underlying information about potential payouts relative to the stake but differ in presentation and calculation. The fractional format, prevalent in the United Kingdom, originated in the late 18th century amid the rise of professional bookmakers at horse racing events, where simple ratios were used to quote bets efficiently on-site.[4][5] As horse racing grew into a major betting activity in Britain during this period, fractional odds became standardized for their clarity in expressing profit relative to the wager.[6] Fractional odds, also known as UK or traditional odds, represent the ratio of profit to stake in the form of a fraction , where is the numerator (potential profit units) and is the denominator (stake units). For instance, odds of mean a bettor stakes 1 unit to win 5 units of profit, excluding the returned stake. The total payout for a stake is given by This format favors underdogs with higher numerators and is intuitive for traditional betting rings.[7] Decimal odds, commonly used in Europe and Australia, express the total payout per unit stake, including the stake itself, as a single decimal number. For odds of 6.00, a 1-unit stake returns 6 units total (5 units profit plus the stake). The total payout formula simplifies to where is the decimal odds value. This format is favored for its straightforward multiplication in calculations, making it suitable for modern online bookmaking.[7] Moneyline odds, standard in the United States and known as American odds, use a plus or minus sign to indicate underdogs or favorites, respectively, relative to a 100-unit benchmark. Positive odds (+500) mean a 100-unit stake wins 500 units profit; negative odds (-200) mean a 200-unit stake wins 100 units profit. The total payout for positive moneyline is and for negative moneyline , This system aligns with American sports betting conventions, emphasizing the scale of risk.[7] Conversions between these formats are essential for global bookmaking and rely on their shared foundation in payout ratios. To convert fractional to decimal odds, add 1 to the fractional value: The reverse, decimal to fractional, subtracts 1 and expresses as a reduced fraction: For fractional to moneyline, if , use positive ; otherwise, negative . Decimal to moneyline follows: if , positive ; if , negative . Moneyline to decimal is: for positive, ; for negative, . These steps derive from equating the profit-to-stake ratios across formats.[7][8] Consider the example of fractional odds . Convert to decimal: . Then to moneyline: since , . This means a 1-unit stake at yields 6 units total, equivalent to +500 moneyline where 100 units win 500 profit (total 600). The conversions confirm identical payouts across formats.[7] The following table compares the three formats for sample odds in a hypothetical horse race event, including the implied probability for each (derived from decimal odds) to illustrate equivalence, where higher odds correspond to lower probabilities.| Description | Fractional | Decimal | Moneyline | Implied Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heavy Favorite | 1/4 | 1.25 | -400 | 80% |
| Even Chance | 1/1 | 2.00 | +100 | 50% |
| Moderate Underdog | 3/1 | 4.00 | +300 | 25% |
| Longshot | 10/1 | 11.00 | +1000 | ~9.1% |
Implied Probabilities from Odds
Implied probabilities represent the likelihood of an outcome as inferred from the odds offered by bookmakers, serving as a key tool in assessing the perceived fairness of betting lines. These probabilities are derived directly from the odds format, assuming a scenario where the bookmaker's book is balanced without margin. Various odds formats—such as decimal, fractional, and moneyline—serve as inputs for these calculations, enabling consistent probability estimation across markets.[1] The formula for implied probability varies by odds format. For decimal odds , the implied probability is given by which reflects the reciprocal of the total payout multiplier.[1] For fractional odds expressed as (where is the profit and the stake), the implied probability is capturing the stake's proportion relative to the total return.[1] In moneyline format, for positive odds (underdogs), the implied probability is while for negative odds (favorites), it is [1] These conversions allow bettors and analysts to translate odds into probabilistic terms for comparison with estimated true probabilities. In a fair book, the implied probabilities across all mutually exclusive outcomes for an event must normalize to sum to 1, ensuring no arbitrage opportunities exist. This normalization condition holds when the bookmaker sets lines without incorporating a margin, aligning the collective probabilities with the event's exhaustive outcomes.[1] Fair odds themselves are defined such that their implied probabilities exactly match the true underlying probabilities of the outcomes; for decimal odds, this yields the equation where is the true probability, resulting in expected returns of zero for the bettor over the long run.[9] A representative example is a fair coin flip, where the true probability of heads or tails is 0.5 each. Fair decimal odds would be 2.00 for either outcome, implying or 50%, summing to 1 across outcomes. If the coin is biased with a true probability of heads at 0.6, fair decimal odds adjust to for heads and for tails, with implied probabilities matching the true values and normalizing to 1.[1][9]Constructing a Balanced Book
In bookmaking, a book refers to the complete set of odds offered on all mutually exclusive and exhaustive outcomes of a single event, such as the winner of a sports match. The primary goal of constructing a balanced book is to set these odds in a way that guarantees the bookmaker a profit irrespective of the event's outcome, achieved by incorporating a margin into the pricing structure.[2] The process begins with estimating the true probabilities of each outcome, typically using statistical models, historical data, expert assessments, and sometimes market indicators from other bookmakers.[2] These true probabilities, which sum to 1 across all outcomes, are then adjusted upward to include the bookmaker's desired margin, creating implied probabilities that exceed the true ones.[2] The odds for each outcome are subsequently calculated as the reciprocal of these adjusted implied probabilities, often expressed in decimal, fractional, or American formats.[2] A key mathematical condition for a balanced book is that the sum of the implied probabilities across all outcomes must exceed 1, embedding the margin directly into the odds structure: where represents the adjusted implied probability for outcome , and is the number of outcomes.[2] This ensures that, assuming bets are distributed proportionally to the implied probabilities, the total liabilities are covered with a surplus for the bookmaker. For a simple two-outcome event like a tennis match between Player A and Player B, suppose the estimated true probabilities are 60% for A and 40% for B. To incorporate a 5% margin, these are adjusted to implied probabilities of approximately 62% for A and 43% for B (summing to 105%). The corresponding decimal odds would then be about 1.61 for A () and 2.33 for B ().[2] If bets are placed proportionally—say, $62 on A and $43 on B for a total of $105—the bookmaker collects $105 but pays out $100 (e.g., $62 \times 1.61 \approx $100 for A winning), yielding a $5 profit regardless of the result. This construction balances liabilities by design, minimizing risk exposure while securing the margin.[2]Overround and Bookmaker Margin
Defining and Calculating Overround
Overround, also known as vigorish or the bookmaker's margin, represents the built-in advantage that bookmakers incorporate into their odds to ensure profitability regardless of the event's outcome. It is quantified as the percentage by which the sum of the implied probabilities for all possible outcomes in a single event exceeds 100%. This excess ensures that the total payouts do not fully return the total stakes wagered, allowing the bookmaker to retain a profit margin in a balanced book.[1][10] The implied probability for an outcome is derived from the offered odds; in decimal format, which is common in bookmaking, it is calculated as the reciprocal of the decimal odds. For a multi-outcome event, the overround is then determined by summing these implied probabilities across all mutually exclusive and exhaustive outcomes and subtracting 1 (or 100% when expressed as a percentage). Following the construction of a balanced book, where stakes are proportionally allocated to outcomes, the overround directly measures the bookmaker's expected edge. The core formula is: where are the decimal odds for each of the outcomes.[1][10] In a fair book without any margin, the sum of implied probabilities would equal 1, reflecting true probabilities. The overround thus deviates from this fair value, embedding the bookmaker's advantage into the odds structure for events like three-way football matches (home win, draw, away win). To calculate it, one simply sums the reciprocals of the decimal odds for each outcome. For instance, consider a soccer match with decimal odds of 2.10 for a home win, 3.40 for a draw, and 3.80 for an away win. The implied probabilities are , , and , summing to approximately 103.3%. The overround is therefore .[1][10]Overround in Single Events
In single-event betting markets, the overround represents the bookmaker's built-in margin, calculated as the percentage excess of the sum of implied probabilities over 100%. For two-outcome events, such as a baseball game where only a home or away win is possible (ignoring ties for simplicity), the overround is computed using decimal odds and for the respective outcomes. The implied probabilities are and , and the overround is given by . For example, with odds of 1.91 for the home team and 2.00 for the away team, the implied probabilities are approximately 52.36% and 50%, summing to 102.36%, yielding an overround of 2.36%. This formula ensures the bookmaker's edge is embedded directly in the pricing.[10] For three-outcome events like soccer matches, which include home win, draw, and away win, the calculation extends to summing the implied probabilities across all outcomes. Consider sample decimal odds of 2.50 for home win, 3.40 for draw, and 2.80 for away win; the implied probabilities are 40.00%, 29.41%, and 35.71%, respectively, totaling 105.12%. The overround is thus (105.12% - 100%) = 5.12%. This detailed summation highlights how bookmakers distribute the margin across multiple possibilities while maintaining overall profitability. The process involves converting each set of odds to probabilities and aggregating them, revealing the total book percentage before subtracting 100% to isolate the margin.[11] The presence of an overround directly impacts bettor value by reducing the expected return below 100%. Specifically, for a stake of 1 unit, the expected payout across all outcomes is , meaning the long-term return is less than the amount wagered. In the baseball example above, the expected return is approximately 97.64% (1 / 1.0236), ensuring the bookmaker retains 2.36% on average. Similarly, in the soccer case, it is about 95.12%, underscoring how even small overrounds compound to guarantee the house edge over volume.[10] Typical overrounds vary by sport due to market efficiency and outcome complexity. In horse racing, where single races often feature many runners, empirical averages range from 15% to 25%, reflecting higher margins to account for uncertainty and volume. In contrast, efficient markets like tennis matches, with only two outcomes, exhibit lower overrounds of 4% to 6%, driven by better information availability and competition among bookmakers. These differences illustrate how event structure influences margin application in single-event books.[12][10]Empirical Bookmaker Margins
Empirical analyses of bookmaker margins, derived from observed overrounds in real betting markets, reveal variations across sports and leagues, influenced by market dynamics and competition. In the English Premier League (EPL), studies from the 2010s indicate average overrounds of 105-110%, corresponding to margins of 5-10%, with a notable decline from higher levels in the early 2000s due to intensified bookmaker rivalry. For instance, traditional online bookmakers' margins for EPL matches fell from approximately 12.5% in 2002 to around 5% by 2015, while online-exclusive operators achieved even lower margins of about 2.5%. As of the 2024/25 season, competitive books offer margins as low as 3.5%.[13][14] Comparisons across major leagues highlight differences tied to bet types and market maturity. American football in the NFL typically features margins of 4-5%, stemming from the standard -110 odds on two-way spreads that yield a vig of roughly 4.55%. The NBA shows similar levels, around 4.5%, reflecting high betting volume and efficient pricing in point spread markets. In contrast, soccer leagues often exhibit higher margins of 6-8%, attributable to three-way outcomes (home, draw, away) that allow greater overround incorporation.[15][16] Several factors drive these empirical margins. Enhanced market efficiency, bolstered by data analytics and algorithmic pricing, has compressed margins as bookmakers refine implied probabilities to mirror true outcomes more closely. Surging betting volumes, particularly in high-profile leagues, enable sharper odds through balanced books and reduced risk exposure. Regulatory shifts following the 2000s online betting expansion, including liberalization in Europe and the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning PASPA, fostered competition that pressured margins downward, with e-sports emerging as a low-margin frontier at around 4% in 2020s studies due to digital-native platforms and global accessibility.[13][15]| Sport/League | Average Margin | Period | Notes/Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| English Premier League (soccer) | 5-6% | 2010s | Decline from 12.5% in 2002; traditional bookmakers. As of 2024/25, some at 3.5%.[13][14] |
| NFL (American football) | 4-5% | Ongoing | Standard vig on -110 spreads ≈4.55%.[16] |
| NBA (basketball) | ≈4.5% | Ongoing | High-volume point spreads.[15] |
| General Soccer Leagues | 6-8% | 2010s-2020s | Three-way markets elevate overround.[15] |
| E-sports | ~4% | 2020s | Competitive digital markets; e.g., Pinnacle low-vig offerings.[15] |
Settling Winnings for Basic Bets
Payouts for Single Bets
In single bets, also known as straight bets, the payout calculation determines the total return to the bettor upon a successful outcome, based on the stake and the offered odds.[2] The most straightforward format is decimal odds, where the total return is computed by multiplying the stake by the decimal odds , yielding the full payout including both the stake and profit: The profit, excluding the returned stake, is then .[1] For fractional odds, expressed as a ratio of numerator to denominator (e.g., 3/1), the profit is calculated as the stake multiplied by the fractional value: The total return includes this profit plus the original stake refunded to the bettor on a win.[17] For instance, a $10 stake at decimal odds of 2.50 results in a total return of $25, comprising the $10 stake plus $15 profit.[18] This structure ensures that winning single bets always refund the stake alongside any winnings, maintaining the bettor's initial investment in the payout.[19] American odds, commonly used in moneyline betting, provide another format for calculating payouts in single bets, with formulas detailed in the odds formats section. For positive odds (underdogs), the total payout is given by , where is the positive moneyline value. For negative odds (favorites), it is , where is the absolute value of the negative moneyline. For example, a $300 stake on +160 odds results in a profit of $480 and a total payout of $780. Similarly, a $300 stake on -190 odds yields a profit of approximately $157.89 and a total payout of approximately $457.89.[20][21]Handling Ties and Voids in Singles
In single bets, voids occur when an event is canceled, abandoned, or otherwise unable to produce a valid outcome according to bookmaker rules, such as a boxing match halted due to a fighter's injury before completion. In such cases, the bet is settled as "no action," resulting in a full refund of the original stake to the bettor, with no profit or loss recorded; mathematically, the return is simply . This ensures neutrality for both the bettor and bookmaker, preserving the stake without implying any probability adjustment.[22][23] Ties in single bets are handled differently depending on the market type and sport. In two-way markets, such as moneyline bets without a draw option, a tie typically results in a push, where the bet is voided and the stake is fully refunded, akin to the void rule above. For instance, in American football moneyline betting, a rare tie leads to this settlement to avoid unfair outcomes in binary markets.[24] In markets allowing ties but where the bet is placed on a win outcome, settlements often involve a half-stake win at the offered odds, particularly under dead-heat rules for tied results. This adjustment accounts for the shared outcome by treating half the stake as a winner and the other half as void. If the decimal odds are , the return is , equivalent to a full win on half the stake plus the refunded half. A representative example is a cricket match winner bet: if the game ends in a tie, bookmakers settle as a dead heat between the two teams, applying this half-stake formula to the selected team's odds.[25][26] These adjustments build on standard single bet payouts, where a full win returns , by prorating for incomplete or shared resolutions to maintain fairness in probability terms.[27]Examples of Single Bet Settlements
To illustrate the settlement of a single bet on a winning outcome, consider a $50 stake placed on a horse at fractional odds of 3/1. The profit is calculated as the stake multiplied by the numerator of the odds (3), yielding $50 × 3 = $150 in winnings, for a total return of $200 (stake plus profit).[7] These fractional odds convert to decimal odds of 4.00, where the total payout would similarly be $50 × 4.00 = $200, confirming consistency across formats.[7] In cases of a voided bet, such as a tennis match abandoned due to rain with no resumption possible, the wager is typically cancelled, and the full stake is returned to the bettor. For example, a $100 moneyline bet on Player A versus Player B becomes void if the match is halted mid-set by persistent rain and officially abandoned; the bookmaker refunds the $100 stake, treating the bet as if it never occurred.[28] For handling ties in single bets like draw no bet (DNB) in soccer, the market voids the bet on a draw, returning the full stake, while settling wins or losses normally. Consider a $20 stake on Team A to win DNB at decimal odds of 2.00 (equivalent to fractional 1/1 or American +100). If Team A wins, the profit is $20 × (2.00 - 1) = $20, for a total return of $40. If the match ends in a draw, the stake of $20 is refunded with no profit or loss. If Team A loses, the full $20 stake is lost. This structure applies the standard DNB payout formula, emphasizing the push on ties as referenced in basic bet settlement methods.[29]Mathematics of Combined Bets
Overround in Multiple Selections
In multiple selections, such as accumulators or doubles, the overround extends beyond single events by compounding across independent selections, thereby increasing the bookmaker's overall margin. For independent events, each with its own overround factor (defined as the sum of the implied probabilities for all outcomes in event , where ), the total overround factor for the combined bet is given by the product: The effective overround, expressed as a percentage, is then , reflecting the multiplicative nature of probabilities in joint events.[30] This compounding arises because the implied probability for the accumulator outcome— the joint success of all selections—is the product of the individual implied probabilities for each selection. If each selection has an implied probability , the combined implied probability is , which exceeds the true joint probability under the inflated individual implied probabilities from the overround. As a result, the offered odds for the accumulator are shortened relative to the fair joint odds, embedding a higher margin.[30][31] Consider a double bet on two independent soccer matches, where each match has an overround of 105% (). The total overround factor is , or approximately 110.25%, more than doubling the margin from a single event. This example illustrates how even modest individual overrounds accumulate, with the margin growing exponentially as the number of selections increases—for instance, five selections at 105% each yield , or a 127.6% overround factor.[30][32] The compounding formula assumes independence among the events, meaning the outcome of one does not influence the others, allowing probabilities to multiply directly. However, this assumption has limitations in practice; correlated events, such as bets on teams from the same league affected by shared factors like weather or injuries, result in true joint probabilities deviating from the product of marginals, potentially altering the effective margin though bookmakers typically multiply odds regardless.[30][31]Payout Formulas for Accumulators
Accumulator bets, commonly referred to as accas, parlays, or multiples in various jurisdictions, combine several individual selections into a single wager where all outcomes must succeed for the bet to pay out. This structure amplifies potential returns through multiplicative odds but also heightens risk, as a single losing selection voids the entire bet. The mathematics underlying accumulator payouts builds directly on single-bet principles by extending the return calculation multiplicatively across selections.[33] The core payout formula for an accumulator is derived from the product of the decimal odds for each winning selection, multiplied by the initial stake . For a general accumulator with selections having decimal odds , the total return is given by: This formula assumes all selections win; otherwise, the stake is lost. The profit realized from a winning accumulator is then . Decimal odds represent the total return per unit staked (including the stake), making this multiplication straightforward for computation.[33][34] For a double accumulator, involving two selections with odds and , the total return simplifies to . Similarly, a treble with three selections at odds , , and yields . These cases illustrate the progressive compounding: each additional selection multiplies the cumulative odds, escalating both potential payout and the required success probability.[33] Consider a practical example of a $10 treble bet on three selections with decimal odds of 2.00, 3.00, and 1.50. The combined odds are , so the total return is , yielding a profit of . This demonstrates how modest individual odds can produce substantial returns when multiplied, though the probability of all three outcomes occurring is the product of their individual probabilities.[35]Full Cover and Yankee Bets
Full cover bets represent a comprehensive wagering strategy in bookmaking that includes every possible non-empty combination of accumulator bets derived from a set of selections. This structure ensures coverage of all subsets of selections, from singles to the full -fold accumulator, totaling individual bets. For instance, with selections, a full cover yields 7 bets: 3 singles, 3 doubles, and 1 treble, commonly known as a patent bet.[36] The approach derives from combinatorial principles, where each bet corresponds to a unique subset of the selections, allowing returns even if only a portion of the selections succeed.[36] A prominent example of a full cover bet without singles is the Yankee, which applies to selections and comprises 11 bets: 6 doubles (all pairwise combinations), 4 trebles (all combinations of three selections), and 1 fourfold accumulator.[37] This excludes the 4 single bets, reducing the total from the complete to focus on higher-multiplier combinations, thereby increasing potential returns at the cost of requiring at least two winning selections for any payout.[36] The Yankee's structure balances risk by incorporating multiple accumulator components, as referenced in standard multiple bet frameworks.[38] Payouts for full cover and Yankee bets are calculated as the aggregate returns from all successful sub-accumulators within the bet. Each winning combination pays out independently based on the product of the decimal odds for its selections, multiplied by the unit stake, with the total return summed across victors.[37] For example, in a Yankee bet, if only two of the four selections win, the payout derives solely from the single double bet involving those two winners.[36] The total stake required for these bets is determined by the number of component wagers multiplied by the unit stake per bet, expressed as , where is the number of bets (e.g., 11 for a Yankee) and is the unit stake.[37] Consider a Yankee bet on four horse races with a $1 unit stake, totaling $11. If two horses win at odds of 2/1 and 3/1 (decimal 3.00 and 4.00), the relevant double pays $1 \times 3.00 \times 4.00 = $12 (including return of the $1 stake for that line), while the other 10 lines lose their $1 stakes each. With a total stake of $11, the net profit is $1.[37] If three selections win at similar odds, returns accumulate from the one relevant treble and three doubles, significantly amplifying the total payout.[37]Advanced Settlement Methods
Each-Way and Place Bets
Each-way bets represent a hybrid wagering structure in bookmaking, particularly prevalent in horse racing, where the total stake is divided equally between a win bet and a place bet on the same selection. This dual approach allows bettors to receive a payout if the selection wins the event or merely finishes within a designated placing position, such as second or third, thereby mitigating some risk compared to a straight win bet. The win portion operates at the full offered odds, while the place portion is paid at a fractional percentage of those odds, typically one-quarter or one-fifth, depending on the race conditions.[39] The specific place terms, which dictate the number of qualifying positions and the odds fraction, are standardized in UK and Irish horse racing to ensure consistency across bookmakers. For non-handicap races with 5-7 runners, places are paid for 1st and 2nd at 1/4 odds; for 8 or more runners, places cover 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at 1/5 odds. In handicap races, the terms vary by field size: 5-7 runners pay 1st and 2nd at 1/4 odds; 8-11 runners pay 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at 1/5 odds; 12-15 runners pay 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at 1/4 odds; and 16 or more runners pay 1st through 4th at 1/4 odds. These terms reflect industry norms established to balance bookmaker margins with bettor appeal in events of varying competitiveness.[40] Mathematically, the payout for an each-way bet with total stake is calculated separately for the win and place components, each receiving . Let denote the decimal win odds (payout multiplier including stake return). If the selection wins, the total return is: where is the place fraction (e.g., 1/4 or 1/5), and the place payout uses the fractional odds applied to the win odds profit. If the selection places but does not win, only the place portion returns: with the win portion lost. This formulation ensures the place bet returns the stake plus profit at the reduced odds, aligning with the dual-stake structure.[39][40] For instance, consider a £20 each-way bet on a horse at 10/1 fractional odds (decimal ) in a non-handicap race with 8+ runners, where place terms are 1/5 odds for the top three. The stake splits as £10 on win and £10 on place. If the horse finishes second, the win portion is lost, but the place odds are 10/5 = 2/1 (decimal 3.0), yielding a place return of £10 × 3.0 = £30 (£20 profit on place). The net profit after total stake is £10 (£30 return minus £20 stake). This illustrates how place fractions directly influence returns in non-winning outcomes.[40]Without and Forecast Bets
In horse racing bookmaking, a without bet involves calculating odds and payouts by excluding a specified runner, typically the favorite, from the field, allowing wagers on the remaining horses as if the excluded one does not participate.[41] If the selected horse wins among the remainder, the payout is determined by the adjusted odds for that market, given by the formula , where is the stake and is the decimal odds (including stake return) specific to the without market.[41] These odds are recalculated to reflect the reduced field, often resulting in higher returns for non-favorites compared to the full market.[41] For example, in a horse race with a favorite excluded, if a horse is offered at 4/1 odds in the without market and a bettor stakes $10 on it to win among the remainder, the total payout upon victory is $50 (stake returned plus $40 profit), as in decimal terms.[41] Forecast bets, prevalent in horse and greyhound racing, require predicting the exact finishing order of the top positions, with payouts based on specialized odds rather than standard win prices. A straight forecast bet predicts the first and second place finishers in precise order, with the payout calculated as , where is the forecast odds, often determined by a computer algorithm using starting prices, field size, and runner details.[42][43] A reverse forecast extends the straight forecast by covering both possible orders of two selected runners for first and second, effectively combining two straight forecasts but typically at averaged or reduced odds to account for the dual coverage.[43] The total stake is doubled compared to a single straight forecast, and the payout uses the reverse-specific odds applied to the full stake.[44] Combination forecasts involve selecting three or more runners and betting on all possible pairs to finish first and second in any order, dividing the stake across the permutations (e.g., 6 lines for three selections).[45] If a winning pair emerges, the payout is the sum for that specific forecast line at its odds, with the effective stake per line being the total stake divided by the number of combinations.[45] For instance, in a race with three selected horses where one pair finishes first and second at 5/1 forecast odds, a $10 total stake (divided into $10/6 ≈ $1.67 per line) yields a $10 payout for the winning line ($1.67 × 6 = $10 total return, or $0 profit).[43]Algebraic Models for Bet Settlements
Algebraic models provide a unified framework for calculating bet settlements by expressing payouts as functions of stakes, odds, and outcomes, enabling generalization across single and combined bet types. A general model defines the payout as , where is the stake, is the vector of odds for each selection, and is the set of winning selections. For accumulator bets, where all selections in must win, the payout simplifies to , with the product representing the cumulative odds multiplier.[1] This formulation captures the exponential growth in potential returns for multiple selections, as each additional winning leg multiplies the prior payout factor.[46] For full cover bets, which include all possible combinations of selections (such as doubles, trebles, and accumulators), payouts are calculated by summing over the winning subsets using combinatorial products. For a Yankee bet across four selections with decimal odds , the total payout multiplier for all winning combinations excluding singles is expanded to sum the products for doubles, trebles, and the fourfold, scaled by the stake per bet type. The payout is then times this multiplier, providing a compact derivation for any partial outcome by evaluating only the winning terms.[46] Similarly, each-way bets derive as a linear combination: , where and are fractions (typically 1 for win, 1/4 for place), unifying win and place settlements under the general framework.[46] To handle adjustments like voids or partial outcomes, a universal equation incorporates void factors , yielding , where for active legs, for losses (nullifying the bet), or as an adjustment (e.g., removing a voided leg by renormalizing the product over remaining selections). This extension ensures the model accommodates real-world settlement variations, such as rule-based reductions in multi-leg bets.[1]Optimization and Risk in Bookmaking
Balancing Books for Profit
In bookmaking, liability balancing involves dynamically adjusting odds to ensure that the potential payouts across all possible outcomes are equalized, thereby guaranteeing a profit regardless of the event's result. This strategy minimizes the bookmaker's exposure by aligning betting volumes with the implied probabilities derived from the odds, such that the stakes on each outcome are proportional to the implied probability , or for some constant . When balanced, the liability on each outcome—calculated as , where is the decimal odds for outcome —equals , and the total stakes . The profit then equals , with the overround serving as the profit mechanism. The formula for optimal odds adjustment in liability balancing incorporates the true probabilities and current betting patterns to recalibrate :where expected liability reflects the projected payout on outcome based on incoming stakes, ensuring the total payout potential equals the total stake volume times . This adjustment prevents excessive exposure on any single outcome while preserving the bookmaker's margin. For risk-averse balancing, the implied probabilities are set as , where is the gross margin, yielding as a baseline before fine-tuning for stake imbalances.[47] Dutching, as an arbitrage-free balancing technique, proportions stakes inversely to the odds—equivalent to directly proportional to the implied probabilities—to achieve even profit across outcomes. In the bookmaker context, this mirrors the goal of encouraging stake distributions where , ensuring constant liability and profit invariance. The overround is maintained to avoid arbitrage opportunities, as precludes risk-free profits for bettors.[48] For example, in a three-way market like a soccer match, if betting is disproportionately heavy on the favorite (e.g., the draw at short odds), the bookmaker would shorten the favorite's odds further to make it less attractive for additional wagers while lengthening the odds on the home win and away win to encourage balancing bets on those outcomes. These adjustments apply only to new wagers, allowing the book to evolve toward equalized liabilities over time while incorporating the overround for profit.
