0 – Extra time not decisive

In the previous 20 Champions League finals, none have been decided in extra time. Interestingly, on the six occasions extra time has been needed, there have been no goals scored in the 180 minutes of play.

Barcelona were the last team to win the cup in extra time back in 1992 when they beat Sampdoria 1-0 thanks to a goal from Ronald Koeman in the 111th minute.

1 – Number of red cards in a final (normal time)

Only one player has been sent off in a Champions League final normal time – Jens Lehmann. The Arsenal goalkeeper was dismissed in the 2006 on 18 minutes for bringing down Samuel Eto’o. Despite trailing for the majority of the match, Barcelona made their man advantage count, winning 2-1 with goals from Eto’o and Juliano Belletti on 76 and 81 minutes respectively.

Pinnacle Sports are offering odds of 3.470* to see the referee brandish a red card, while 1.333* suggest Lehmann will remain the only player to be given his marching orders in normal time.

2.55 – Average number of goals in Champions League final

Since 1993, the Champions League final has witnessed 51 goals at an average of 2.55 goals per game. Despite only one final in the last five years seeing more than 2.5 goals, 60% of finals in the last 20 years have.

Over 2.5 and 3 goals is available to back with Pinnacle Sports at 2.000*, but if you think the final will see less than 2.5 and 3 goals at Wembley odds of 1.917* are available.

3 – Same nation final stats

The 2013 final will become the fourth same nation final and the first all-German in the Champions League.

The three previous games have been tight affairs – two of the games were decided by a penalty shootout with an average of 1.6 goals per game and four bookings.

4 – Average number of bookings in Champions League final (normal time)

The previous 20 Champions League finals have produced 78 yellow cards and one sending off, which averages out to 4 booking points per game with Pinnacle Sports. (Click here to read booking rules).

Over 4.5 bookings is available at 1.714* while Pinnacle Sports offer 2.200* for under 4.5 booking points. It is worth noting that only 20% of finals have seen more than 4.5 booking points in the past 20 years.

4 – Only four penalties (normal time)

There have been four penalties in normal time in the last 20 Champions League finals – three of which came in the same game. Intriguingly, only two have been scored.

Pinnacle Sports are offering odds of 3.620* for a penalty to be awarded in normal time for the first time since 2005, while 1.313* is available for bettors who believe the drought will continue.

6 – Penalty shootouts

Six Champions League finals have been decided by penalty shoot-outs with only one reaching sudden death. Bayern Munich have been involved in two of these shoot-outs, winning one in 2001 and losing last year to Chelsea.

10 – Average Corners in last 7 years (normal time)

There have been 70 corners in the past seven Champions League cup finals, which averages to 10 per final. With Pinnacle Sports setting the over/under mark at 10 corners, 28% of finals in this period have produced more, while 72% have seen fewer corners per game.

Over 10 corners is available at 1.901*, while 1.990* are the odds for under 10.

16 seconds – Quickest goal by a substitution

16 seconds is all it took former Dortmund forward Lars Ricken to score after coming onto the pitch as a substitute in the 1997 final against Juventus – the quickest goal by a substitute in the Champions League final.

52 seconds – Fastest Champions League goal

Paolo Maldini holds the record for the fastest goal scored in Champions League final history. The Italian took just 52 seconds to give AC Milan the lead against Liverpool in 2005.

55% – Both teams to score

In 55% of Champions League finals in the last 20 years, both teams have scored. Odds of 1.694* are available if you think both Bayern and Dortmund will score, while 2.280* is offered for at least one team to keep a clean sheet.

54% – How often the favourites win in normal time

Since 2002, 54% of the favourites with Pinnacle Sports have lifted the cup inside 90 minutes. With extra time and penalties included, this number jumps up to 72%.

Bayern Munich are this year’s 1.781* favourites with Pinnacle Sports, while Dortmund are available at 4.760*, with the draw set at 4.020*.

On the “which team will win?” market, Bayern are set at 1.426* compared to Dortmund at 3.100*.

Click here to see the latest 2013 Champions League final odds.

Nadal is as short as 2.000* with Pinnacle Sports to win the 2013 French Open following seven wins at Roland Garros. The Spaniard’s dominance on clay, however is down to a simple piece of science: friction. The torn-up nature of the surface means that the clay particles generate a lot more friction when balls bounce off the ground – far more than grass or hard courts.

Clay court science

The resistance generated when the ball collides with the clay slows down the bottom of the ball, but doesn’t affect the velocity of the top of it, which continues travelling at the same speed. The disparity between the consistent speed (at the top of the ball) and the deceleration (on the bottom of the ball) forces a more vertical impact with the floor.

The increased vertical angle then causes a higher bounce, which coupled with an overall decrease in speed, ensures that it’s harder to hit a winner and easier to return shots. While this provides a distinct benefit for anyone returning serve, it also means the surface is ideal for consistent, powerful baseline players – like Rafael Nadal.

Taking a note of a player’s style is particularly important for tennis betting for the French Open and other clay tournaments, as the competition favours baseline players over attackers (Federer) and players who built their ranking on big serves (plenty of other players in the top 20).

Clay court aces: few and far between

One of the biggest statistics supporting the science behind the quirks of clay courts is ace percentages. Throughout the careers of all of the top 20 ATP players, every one has hit noticeably fewer aces on clay than on hard courts. On average, the ATP top 20 has hit 43.5% fewer aces on clay than on hard courts.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 279.850* is the biggest victim of the curse of clay, hitting 79.5% fewer aces over his career on the crushed brick than on hard courts. The Frenchman averages just 7.3 ace serves out of 100, compared with 13.1 on hard.

Milos Raonic has recorded the highest career ace percentage on the surface (12.9 per 100 serves), which is still a massive 52.7% drop on his hard court performances.

Service stopper

Nineteen of the 20 top ATP players win fewer points on their first serves on clay than on hard courts. While this is partially accounted for by a reduction in aces, the fact that clay courts gives receivers a better opportunity to return the ball is also vital.

Only Juan Monaco manages to win more points on his first serve on clay – 0.9% more – than on hard courts. He also wins more points on clay on his second serve – 3.2%. Such tidbits are useful for tennis betting, as not many people would consider anyone to win more points on their serve on clay than on a hard court. This fact suggests that Monaco could easily be underrated on the surface.

Returners’ revenge

Every player in the ATP top 20 has an improved “return points won” percentage on clay. While the improvement can be as little as 0.8% (Janko Tipsarevic), it’s also the statistic that shows Nadal’s dominance. With a 14.3% increase in return points won on clay; the Spaniard wins an incredible 46.9% of points served at him.

Spanish supremacy

All three Spanish men inside the top 20 boast exceptional clay-court performance. Nadal and David Ferrer win more return points on clay than any other player, winning 46.9% and 44.2% respectively (Djokovic is at 43.9%).

This is almost certainly helped by the fact that clay is the primary surface in Spain, largely because of the hot, dry climate. This could be why Andy Murray, who spent a lot of his youth training in Spain, has the fifth highest return point percentage of the top 20 at 43.6%.

In terms of the performance difference between clay and hard courts, Nadal and fellow Spaniard Nicolas Almagro top the table, successfully returning on 14.3% and 10.7% more points on clay than hard courts.

It could also be argued that Nicolas Almagro is the most surface-agnostic of the top 20 players, hitting just 18.9% fewer aces on the surface (the second smallest drop), and winning just 0.5% fewer points on his first serve and 0.4% on his second – the smallest differences of any player.

Other clay outliers

Investigating the performance of the 20 top ATP players also revealed some other interesting facts about players not usually associated with their clay-court performances:

Kei Nishikori: Nishikori actually wins the third-highest percentage of return points of any of the top 20 players at 43.9%. Only Nadal and Ferrer do better. Despite this success, he also has the lowest ace rate – the Japanese star achieves just 2.5 aces per 100 serves.

Stanislas Wawrinka: The Swiss ace doesn’t have much luck winning his first serve on clay – he wins 21.8% fewer points on his first serve on the surface.

Janko Tipsarevic: Tipsarevic’s return point performance is pretty much constant between the clay and hard courts – he only wins 0.8% more return points on clay, the lowest of any of the ATP 20.

Almost no other sports have the variety that tennis’ different court surfaces bring, nor witness as profound an effect. Therefore for any serious tennis bettor, it is vital to treat the clay, hard and grass courts as separate entities, each with its unique quirks that should be built into betting analysis.

Click here for the latest ATP French Open odds (and here for the WTA French Open odds).

French Open Live Betting – 1st Round Limits Raised to $1000

Pinnacle Sports has raised the limits of next game bets to $1,000 for the 1st round of the French Open, up from $250. These limits increase throughout the tournament, so tennis live betting fans can now bet even more and stay in the action.

The French Open will also see the launch of live spread and live totals betting for tennis matches. These will be posted during changeovers with the money line.

If these odds appear a bit off, it’s probably because you typically wouldn’t give Djokovic a slim 58% chance of winning and the Frenchman a somewhat generous 42% chance. These are real odds, however, but just not for the match outcome.

Instead, these are the odds of winning each point, accurate for this pair’s encounter in the first round of 2013 Australian Open, which Djokovic went on to win (6-2, 6-4, 7-5).

Let’s break the numbers down. The game featured 163 points, of which Djokovic won 95 and Mathieu 68. From this we can produce a probability per point of 95/163 for Djokovic and 68/163 for his opponent. The actual odds for the entire match were entirely different at:

• Djokovic 1.01
• Mathieu 41.00

Both sets of odds are accurate, but are looking at the game from entirely different perspectives or “frames”: the narrow frame (one point) vs. the broad frame (the entire match).

People struggle to reconcile the differing probabilities of the two perspectives – even though they are for the same event – and this can have significant consequences, especially in live tennis betting.

Live betting effectively looks at the game point-by-point, and at the scale Mathieu truly does have a 42% success rate. This can lead bettors to overstate his overall chance, however, especially if they get caught up with the emotion of the crowd and the commentators.

A 42% win percentage per point, extrapolated over all 163 points, however,  translates to a chance of 41.00 for overall success as suggested by the odds (which suggests that if the pair played 40 times the Frenchman would win once).

Framing: a market for success

The phenomenon of framing bias has been documented by decision-making theorists and is seen where someone is averse to an isolated gamble, because subjective reason believes it to be risky despite the expected value being positive. A famous example is:

 Would you take the following gamble on a single coin toss?

Heads loses you $100, tails wins you $200

The majority of people, displaying common risk aversion, reject the offer, focusing on the potential loss in the single toss scenario, even though the Expected Value, and therefore the probability of making money, is $50:

Objective Expected Value = (0.5*200)-(0.5*100) = $50

The academic reasoning for this is that people tend to feel the loss of $1 twice as much as the gain of the same amount. Applying this factor of two for losses, the Expected Value for the single gamble to zero and hence it is rejected:

Loss Averse Expected Value = (0.5*200)-(0.5*100*2) = $0

By expanding our framing to more than a one-off, however, we can get a better understanding of how much we’re likely to win or lose. Compare this slightly larger frame of two coin tosses:

Two tosses Heads lose $100 – Tails win $200

25% lose $200; 50% win $100; 25% win $400. The EV is $100

As above, but with losses doubled due to loss aversion:

25% lose $400; 50% win $100; 25% win $400 – EV is $50

Even with a heightened fear of loss, the Expected Value of two coin tosses is still more positive when viewed with a wider frame. Had you simply used the narrow-frame to analysis the outcome of the two tosses, the opportunity to benefit would have been missed.

The loss adverse approach to this bet tends to remain consistent when considering multiple tosses, but as the cumulative odds of losing diminish with aggregate gambles, loss aversion correspondingly diminishes.

If asked the same question based on a large number of tosses – a broader frame – people tend to be more comfortable with the gamble.

At 100 coin tosses, this bet (without the doubling) has an EV of $5,000 with only a 1 in 2,300 chance of losing any money and a 1 in 62,000 chance of losing $1,000. However, by rejecting the isolated bet in the first instance – the narrow frame – you miss out.

Wider examples

The issues around framing are frequently observed in environments where frequency of data change is high, e.g. financial indexes. The more often you check the market – and therefore the narrower the frame you take – the more likely you are to see noise rather than signal.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb summarises it neatly in his book Fooled By Randomness by illustrating that a portfolio of stocks with a 15% return and 10% volatility returns surprisingly different chances of success at ever narrowing frames. If you were checking this portfolio every second the chance of success would be only 50.02% yet the broad frame – over a year – is 93%.

The lesson to learn from narrow framing is try to see gambles in the aggregate form, thereby avoiding missing out on what are actually favourable outcomes that your risk averse nature would otherwise intuitively reject.

French Open Live Betting – 1st Round Limits Raised to $1000

Pinnacle Sports has raised the limits for next game betting to $1,000 for the 1st round of the French Open, up from $250. These limits increase throughout the tournament, so tennis live betting fans can now bet even more and stay in the action.

The French Open will also see the launch of live spread and live totals betting for tennis matches. These will be posted during changeovers with the money line.

Click here for the latest ATP French Open odds (and here for the WTA French Open odds).

1 – French winner

There has only been one French Open winner of the Open era (Since 1968). When Yannick Noah secured the title 30 years ago against Mats Wilander, no one would have imagined that the French would still be waiting 45 years later for a second champion.

Interestingly, it’s not the home players but ones from Spain and South America that tend to have an advantage in the French Open, due to their experience on clay courts. This is evident in recent results: 13 of the last 16 male champions were from the aforementioned regions.

World No. 8 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga is the best-priced Frenchman to end the drought at 66.920*, while Gilles Simon is offered at 279.850*.

3 –Australian/French Open Double

Only three players – Rod Laver 1969, Mats Wilander 1988 and Jim Courier 1992 – have gone on to win the French Open after claiming the Australian Open earlier in the same year.

This doesn’t bode well for Novak Djokovic, who won the Australian Open in January. The Serbian is available at 2.740* to go one better than last year when he lost in the final to Rafael Nadal after wining the 2012 Australian Open.

5 – Lefties advantage at Roland Garros

There have been 25 different winners at the French Open since 1968, five of which have been left-handed – Rafael Nadal, Rod Lever, Andres Gomez, Thomas Muster and Guillermo Vilas.

Clay is considered an advantage to left-handed players, as their top spin-heavy forehands bounce high onto their opponents backhand, making returning a left-hander much more difficult.

Spain’s second-most famous left-hander Fernando Verdasco has odds of 289.990*.

7 – Nadal the ‘King of Clay’

Rafael Nadal is the defending champion after winning a record 7th French Open title last year against Novak Djokovic. The Spaniard has also picked up 40 clay-court titles in his career – the joint-second highest.

Interestingly, Nadal will be seeded fifth for the tournament after taking six months out through injury. Pinnacle Sports has Nadal as the 2.000* favourite to claim his eighth title.

8 – Finals: short but sweet

Eight of the 45 previous finals have gone to five sets. The last final to go the distance came in 2004 when Gastón Gaudio fought back from 2-0 down to beat Guillermo Coria 8-6 in the final set.

17 – Youngest winner

1989 saw American Michael Chang cause a major upset when he claimed the French Open title at the tender age of 17. Chang beat Sweden’s Stefan Edberg in five sets to win his only major championship.

At the other end of the spectrum, Andrés Gimeno became the oldest French Open winner in 1972 when he beat Patrick Proisy 3-1 at the age of 34.

40% – Non-European winners

40% of all French Open winners come from outside of Europe. However, In the last 20 years at the French Open, only 30% have been non-European, with the last winner being Gastón Gaudio in 2004.

Argentinian Juan Martin Del Potro is best priced with Pinnacle Sports at 26.360* to win his second major title.

50% – Expect less aces

Clay is a significantly different surface to the hard courts normally associated with the ATP Tour – the ball comes onto the racket much slower, so the number of aces are reduced.

The world’s top five players see an average reduction in aces of 50% on clay compared to hardcourts.

Rodger Federer has the least differential drop-off between surfaces, with 34.7% less aces on clay than on hardcourts. The Swiss can be backed as the fourth favourite at 15.270*.

Third favourite Andy Murray is available at 15.210*, however it is worth noting that the Brit has only reached the semi-final stage once.

64.7% – Average break points saved by Top 5 at French Open

A clay surface slows the ball down and creates a better opportunity to return serve than any other surface, resulting in more break point opportunities. Saving these break points can prove pivotal in winning and losing a game, which is why the top five players save an average of 64.7% break points against them – Nadal (70.20%), Federer (65.90%), Djokovic (64%), Murray (62.10%) and Ferrer (59.50%).

98% – Nadal’s French Open win percentage

Nadal is the most successful player in the Open era at the French Open, partially because of his outstanding win rate. With just one defeat against his name and 52 wins, he’s won 98% of his contests on France’s red clay.

393 – Longest game

393 minutes is the longest recorded game at the French Open. It came in the first round the 2004 French Open between French players Fabrice Santoro and Arnaud Clément. The game was recorded at six hours 33 minutes, and ended with Santoro wining 16-14 in the final set.

5,407 – Nadal’s points

In eight French Open tournaments Nadal has scored an incredible 5407 points and conceded 4079 – a positive difference of 1328 points, which shows Nadal scores 32.6% more points than his opposition. That number becomes more remarkable when compared to Djokovic’s stats (W: 4252, L: 3626, Dif: 626) in the same time period – just 17.2% more points than his opponents.

Click here for the latest ATP French Open odds (and here for the WTA French Open odds).

French Open Live Betting – 1st Round Limits Raised to $1000

Pinnacle Sports has raised the limits for next game betting to $1,000 for the 1st round of the French Open, up from $250. These limits increase throughout the tournament, so tennis live betting fans can now bet even more and stay in the action.

The French Open will also see the launch of live spread and live totals betting for tennis matches. These will be posted during changeovers with the money line.

7 – Most wins of Eurovision

Ireland’s contribution to music – other than 1990s boybands and Bono – is Eurovision dominace. The country won Eurovision in 1970, 1980, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994 and most recently in 1996, making it the most successful nation in Eurovision’s illustruous history.

3 – Most Eurovision wins in a row

Ireland have also won the most competitions (3) in a row; in 1992 with the “Why Me” by Linda Martin, in 1993 with “In Your Eyes” by Niamh Kavanagh and in 1994 with “Rock ‘n’ Roll Kids” by Paul Harrington and Charlie McGettigan.

Interestingly, all three of these performers have appeared at the Eurovision competition more than once. Kavanagh’s return was the worst, however, when in Eurovision in2010 she finished in 23rd place.

2 – Most number of wins by a performer

Another record held by Ireland. Singer Johnny Logan is also known by his nickname – Mister Eurovision. He is the only person to have won two Eurovision competitions as a performer, first winning in 1980 with the song “What’s Another Year” and winning again in 1987 with “Hold Me Now”. He also penned the 1992 winning song embedded above for Linda Martin.

6 – Host country victories

Taking place in Malmo, Sweden this year, Eurovision has been won six times by its host country:

• The inaugural competition was won both by and in Switzerland in 1956
• In 1969 four countries were tied for 1^st place including hosts Spain, alongside the UK, Netherlands and France
• In 1973, Luxembourg were victorious hosts with the song “Tut te reconnaitras”
• Israel won in Jerusalem in 1979
• Ireland won twice hosting in 1993 and 1994

27 – English winners?

English is the song language with the most wins, with countries performing winning songs in English for the last five contests. French is the second-most spoke winning language with 14 wins.

The three favourites – Denmark (2.520*), Ukraine (7.140*) and Norway (7.910*) will all be performing their entries in English.

15 – Close but no cigar

The United Kingdom holds the record for second place finishes, having come runner-up 15 times. The most recent near-miss was in 1998, when Imaani said “Where are you?” to the six points she needed to win the competition.

169 – Points record

In 2009 Alexander Rybak’s fairyale came true as he led Norway to a historic Eurovision victory, demolishing the competition by a record margin of 169 points.

Norway are the 3^rd favourites to win Eurovision at 7.910*.

18 – Most 12’s

At last year’s Eurovision, Loreen of Sweden was awarded the maximum possible number of points – 12 – from 18 countries out of 41. This is the most number of countries that anyone has received maximum points from.

16 – Nul Points

Since the introduction of the current scoring system in 1975, there have been 16 entries that have received no points. The most recent entry being “Aven Romale” by Gypsy.cz in 2009. Norway are the country to have been awarded no points the most amount of times – in 1978, 1981 and 1997.

Norway are 2.800* to win Semi-Final 2 and 1.033* to qualify.

11 – Building Blocks

Perhaps one of the key aspects of Eurovision betting is the regional block voting that takes place. Statistical analysis of Eurovision voting shows that countries will often vote for each other purely because of political, cultural or geographical alliance.

There are at least 11 blocks of countries that regularly award each other high points:

• UK and Ireland

• Netherlands and Belgium

• Spain, Portugal and Andorra

• Turkey and Azerbaijan

• Cyprus and Greece

• Georgia and Lithuania

• Romania and Moldova

• Nordic states

• Baltic states

• Balkan countries

• Former Warsaw Pact countries

Click here to see the latest Eurovision outright odds.

Click here to see the latest Eurovision Semi-Final 2 Odds.

90 – the minute in which Meireles knocked out Benfica last season

Benfica were victims of Chelsea’s Champions League run last season, as Di Matteo’s men knocked the Portuguese side out 3-1 over the two quarter-final legs. Goals from Kalou, Lampard and Meireles secured the win – none of whom now regularly featured in Benitez’s side.

The odds with Pinnacle Sports are Chelsea at 2.290* to win, 3.450* to lose and 3.400* for a draw in full time.

0 – red cards for either team in the UEL

Despite neither side being strongly associated with fair play, both teams have avoided red cards in their campaigns so far. Enzo Peréz has the worst disciplinary record of the two teams, receiving four yellow cards from 15 tackles. César Azpilicueta has Chelsea’s worst record, with just two yellow cards.

The “no player sent off” is set at 1.313* on Pinnacle Sports’, with “yes” at 3.620*.

1 – defeat for each team so far 

Benfica were the only unbeaten team left in the competition until Fenerbahce toppled them 1-0 in the first leg of the semi-finals. Chelsea have also only lost once, against Rubin 3-2.

2 –goals needed to win the golden boot award

Benfica’s Oscar Cardozo needs to bag a brace in the final to equal Libor Kozak’s eight goals in the competition so far. Chelsea’s star hitman Fernando Torres requires a hat-trick.

“Both teams to score” is set at 1.826*, while “no” is at 2.080*.

82.5 – minutes played per goal for Cardozo

Cardozo is firing in a goal every 82.5 minutes on average in this year’s Europa League – far better than Torres who scores ever 1.5 games (144-minute intervals).

In fact, Chelsea’s second top scorer Victor Moses is averaging an impressive 106.5 minutes per goal. Benfica are without a fallback if Cardozo has an off day – no other player has scored more than once in the Europa league.

The odds for Chelsea to have a clean sheet are 1.735*, and for Benfica it’s 2.160*.

57% – Victor Moses’ conversion rate for shots on target

Moses is also the most efficient striker in the two teams, scoring 57% of his changes on target. Cardozo scores 50% of his on-target strikes, while Torres finishes on a dismal 36% of occasions.

18% – percentage of Europa League goals scored in the final 15 minutes

Most goals – 18% (17.6%) – in the Europa League come between the 76-90 minutes, which would make for an exciting climax to the final. Otherwise the most important period is the 16-30 minute mark, which sees 16.8% goals.

38 –goals scored in second-half injury time

If you’re hoping for last-minute action, the Europa League has seen 38 goals in second half injury time this season. That’s 7.3% of all goals coming in just 4% of the game.

6 – European finals without a win for Benfica

Benfica have not won in their last six European finals, dating all the way back to 1962. This means the Portuguese side has won just two of its eight European finals (the European Champion Clubs’ Cup in 1961/62 and 1960/61).

Chelsea, on the other hand, have won three of their four European final appearances – their only defeat coming in the 2007/08 Champions League.

1 – City solid at the back

Manchester City have conceded just one goal this season in the FA Cup, with wins against Watford, Stoke, Leeds, Barnsley and Chelsea. In the Premier League, City have the best defensive record (31 goals conceded), while Wigan have the worst (67 goals conceded).

1 Again – extra time is a burden

Just one of the six FA Cup finals held at the new Wembley since 2007 have needed the additional 30 minutes for extra time – Chelsea beat Manchester United 1-0 thanks to a 116^th minute strike from Didier Drogba.

In the past 20 FA Cup finals, four have been level after 90 minutes. The draw in normal time is available at 5.480* with Pinnacle Sports.

1.5 – Goals a premium at new Wembley

Since returning to Wembley in 2007 there has been just nine goals in normal time at an average of just 1.5 goals per game. All recent statistical indicators point to nervy affairs in the final of the world’s oldest club competition.

Under 3 goals is available to back with Pinnacle Sports at 1.185*, however if you think the final will see over 3 goals for the first time at the new Wembley odds of 2.020* are available.

2 – No need for penalty shootouts 

Somewhat surprisingly, there have only been two FA Cup finals decided by a penalty shootout and none at the new Wembley. The two shootouts came in the last two years the FA Cup final was held at the Millennium stadium (2005, 2006).

3 – Italian Job

Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini is bidding to become the first Italian manager to win the FA Cup twice and keep Italy’s successful run going in finals – the last three have all been won by clubs with Italian managers.

4.3 – Players well behaved on Wembley turf (Normal time only)

The last ten FA Cup finals have produced 32 yellow cards and no red cards, with an average of 3.2 booking points with Pinnacle Sports per final (Click here to read booking rules).

Under 4.5 bookings can be backed at 2.200*, while over 4.5 cards is available at 1.714*. It is worth noting that in the past 10 years, 80% of finals have had less than 4.5 bookings in normal time.

4 years and five months – long time since Wigan beat City

Recent history suggests Wigan have a tough task as they haven’t beaten their opponents since a 2-1 win in September 2008. The head-to-head record also looks bleak for the Latics, with them winning just 24% of the contests.

City have won the last seven matches between the sides without conceding a goal, outscoring Roberto Martinez’s men 13-0 since March 2010.

5 – Can Wigan avoid relegation fate?

Wigan are three-points adrift of Premier league safety with two games remaining. The Latics hope to avoid the fate suffered by Manchester City in 1926 when they appeared in the final and were relegated in the same season.

Five clubs Manchester City (1926), Leicester City (1969), Brighton (1983), Middlesbrough (1997) and Portsmouth (2010) all appeared in the final, lost and were then relegated at the end of the season.

8 – Will Toure score?

Two years ago Yaya Toure scored in the 1-0 win over Stoke City to claim City’s first FA Cup win since 1969. If Toure scores against Wigan on Saturday he will become only the eighth player since World War Two to score in at least two FA Cup finals.

33% – Both teams score in final at new Wembley

The market for both teams to score in the FA Cup final is increasingly popular. Interestingly, in the last six finals both teams have scored 33% of the time. With this statistic in your mind, both teams to score can be backed at 1.893*, while odds of 2.000* say they won’t.

55% – City record in FA Cup finals

Manchester City will be playing their 10th FA Cup final, while Wigan will make their first appearance. City have won 55% of the finals and will hope to improve their record on Saturday to 60%.

66% – Favourites prosper

Since the return to Wembley in 2007, 66% of the favourites with Pinnacle Sports have lifted the cup. Manchester City are this year’s 1.358* favourites with Pinnacle Sports, while Wigan are available at 9.940*.

83% – Handicap covered by winners

83% of the FA Cup winners (as above) at the new Wembley covered the handicap, with only Chelsea’s 2010 1-0 win over Portsmouth not doing so. City have a -1.5 goal handicap at 1.909*, while Wigan are set at +1.5 goals at 2.010*.

Click here to see the latest FA Cup Final odds and props

Circuit de Catalunya: Is familiarity a dampener?

The Circuit de Catalunya is a familiar circuit for the F1 teams. It has been part of the Grand Prix calendar every year since 1991 and the drivers and teams conduct the majority of their testing at this venue during the winter – eight of the 12 testing days were held in Barcelona this season.

Barcelona’s mix of high and low-speed corners, plus its abrasive and uneven track surface, makes for a physically and mechanically taxing race. The track poses problems for the teams because tyre wear is notoriously high and the varying winds that cut across the circuit mean an optimum set-up can be hard to find.

However, with teams spending more time at the Circuit de Catalunya than any other track, the unfortunate consequence is a familiarity, which means teams consistently arrive at the track with car set-ups already perfected – resulting in cars which are evenly matched.

A look at the statistics shows that on average there are only 17.55 (22 races) overtakes at the Circuit de Catalunya, while in1999 there was only one recorded overtaking move during the entire race.

The introduction of the DRS zone down the long main straight and the unpredictable durability of the tyres have both gone some way to adding the opportunity for overtaking to the mix.

The greater possibility for overtaking is highlighted by the statistics that show an average of 70.5 overtakes in last two years compared to an average of 12.25 in 20 previous races.

Extra set of tyres for Spanish Grand Prix

Pirelli will provide each team with an extra set of tyres for practice sessions for the Spanish Grand Prix. The idea is to ensure drivers run for the entire session rather than waiting for others to clean the track, therefore making it more suitable for effective running.

With Qualifying proving crucial at the Circuit de Catalunya, teams who put the extra set of tyres in free practice to good use to find an optimal set-up, could prosper.

The teams will have the medium and hard compounds at their disposal for the Spanish GP. After analyzing the data from the previous four races of the season Pirelli have announced they have made a tweak to the hard compound which will make the rubber slightly more durable and lower its operating temperature.

Being hot, fast and abrasive, the Barcelona track takes a lot from the tyres. Three pit stops are expected, as was the case last year. 12 months ago, the top five finishers selected a three-stop strategy all starting on the soft tyre – similar to this years medium compound – while the best-placed two-stopper came eighth, having started from last on the grid.

90% of last ten pole sitters win

After proving there was a good correlation between qualifying position and final race positions throughout the 2012 season (click to read here), we have used the same model to examine the last ten Spanish Grand Prix to indicate how much influence Formula One bettors can place on the relevance of qualifying at the Circuit de Catalunya as a race performance indicator.

The data shows a strong 0.66 correlation between qualifying and race position at the Spanish Grand Prix – which is only slightly behind Bahrain (0.68) as the strongest correlation for the previous tracks raced at this year. (Click here to see correlation values for the previous four Grand Prix of the year).

Despite not having the strongest correlation, a near perfect 90% Spanish GP’s at the Circuit de Catalunya had a correlation above 0.5, which showcases that qualifying provided a significant predictor of a drivers’ race performance for nine of the last ten Grand Prix held at the track.

Looking at previous race winners backs up the strong correlation – the 2011 race was the only one not won by the polesitter in the past 12 years.

How will the teams shape-up after three-weeks off?

With three weeks off since the Bahrain Grand Prix it has been an opportunity for teams to enhance their current cars.

McLaren have made a disastrous start to the 2013 Formula One season. The team went from setting the pace at the end of the 2012 season to battling in the midfield for the opening races of the year – they have been on average more than 1.5% slower than the quickest car in the previous four races.

Jenson Button 26.140* was outraced by teammate Sergio Perez 51.260* in Bahrain and will look to reaffirm his authority in Spain. With a host of upgrades this weekend, the team will hope to see an improvement.

Sebastian Vettel will be hoping to carry the form he showed in Bahrain at the Spanish GP. The German can be backed at 3.160* to claim his second Spanish Grand Prix victory.

Despite Red Bull locking-out the grid in both 2010 and 2011, Vettel has never started on pole position while teammate Mark Webber 13.070* has done so on both occasions.

Ferrari have won 15% (7) of races at the Circuit de Catalunya – all of which came from pole position – while they have secured a podium place on 43% of the time.

Spanish driver Fernando Alonso 3.820* won in 2006 but has failed to win since despite leading the last two races at the Circuit de Catalunya. Teammate Felipe Massa has also won here in 2007 and can be backed at 21.110* to win this weekend.

Lotus have started well this year and in Kimi Räikkönen they have a two-time winner at this circuit. The ‘Ice Man’ is offered as 5.520* to win for a third time, while Romain Grosjean, who has struggled this year is available at 28.150*.

Mercedes have had the fastest car over a single lap at the last three races but making it perform better over a full race distance has been their goal. Lewis Hamilton who is yet to win at the Circuit de Catalunya is at 17.090*, while odds of 26.140* are waiting for you is you fancy a Nico Rosberg win.

Click here for the latest Spanish Grand Prix odds

Rockhold favourite for UFC debut

Luke Rockhold (10-1-0) is the 1.840* favourite with Pinnacle Sports to win on his UFC debut against Brazilian Vitor Belfort. Rockhold is undefeated in his last nine fights, having been forced to relinquish his Strikeforce middleweight title after the organisation closed at the start of the year.

Both fighters will enter the cage at the peak of their careers – Belfort has never looked as good as he did in his fight against Michael Bisping, while Rockhold has looked consistent during his wining streak and will hope to carry that momentum into the fight.

The 28-year-old has youth on his side over the 36-year-old Belfort, but doesn’t have the experience of his opponent or as many big-name opponents in his win column.

Can Belfort continue 100% record on home soil?

Vitor Belfort (22-10-0) returns to his country of birth for the fourth time in his career and the third time in four fights. The Brazilian is yet to taste defeat on home soil – winning all three bouts before the third round.

Despite his 100% home record Pinnacle Sports have Belfort as the 2.080* underdog. This could be down to his history of wilting under pressure during key fights – his record shows multiple losses to Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, Anderson Silva and Jon Jones.

With that said, he is still considered one of the toughest middleweights in MMA history since making his 185-pound debut in 2008. It is no coincidence that he has won every fight at middleweight – winning inside two rounds – except against Anderson Silva.

In his last fight “The Phenom” looked sharp at 185 pounds as he stopped Bisping in the second round at UFC on FX 7.

Expect explosive striking

At 6’3 and with a reach of 77”, Rockhold has a slight size (3”) and reach (3”) advantage, which he will look to utilise when both fighters are on their feet.

However, Belfort has held his own against much taller and rangier strikers in the past, so he should have the skills to adapt against the American.

Belfort is a remarkable boxer and has won 68% of his bouts through KO – in his one professional boxing fight in 2006 he knocked out his opponent in the first minute. The Brazilian has lightning fast hands, and burst on to the scene with a string of blistering sub-one-minute knockouts.

Now at 36, the southpaw boxer hasn’t lost any of his power, while his decisive one-kick knockout of Bisping in his last fight proves how versatile he is on his feet.

His opponent also has a strong stand-up game but doesn’t possess the explosive brutality of the Brazilian – winning just 20% of his fights through striking. He was, however, able to knockout veteran Keith Jardine inside the first round when they fought last year, and his fight against Ronaldo Souza, which secured him the Strikeforce middleweight belt, showcased his Muay Thai skills.

Belfort’s strike statistics shows he lands 1.41 strikes per minute with an accuracy of 46%, which is significantly less than Rockhold, who throws 3.37 strikes a minute albeit with 41% accuracy.

Importantly for Rockfold – who will look to avoid the powerful strikes of his opponent – he has the better strike defence.

The debutant absorbs just 1.63 strikes per minute with a 63% defensive success rate, compared to Belfort who gets tagged 2.16 times on average per minute and repels 54% of his opponents’ strikes.

However, it is worth noting that Belfort has fought at heavyweight and against a higher calibre of opponents. Rockfold lost his only fight by KO, while Belfort has been KO’d in 30% of his defeats.

How do both fighters grappling & submissions skills compare?

Neither pugilist is best known for there wrestling skills, but both have shown the ability to mix it with high-level grapplers.

When Rockhold won the Strikeforce title he beat Ronaldo Souza – renowned to be one of the most dangerous grapplers in MMA – by rebuffing his takedown attempts to win the fight on his feet.

The American averages 0.21 takedowns per 15 minutes with an accuracy of 25% but has a solid 70% takedown defence.

Likewise Belfort has a solid takedown defence (50%), however, in his last fight against Jones he was repeatedly taken to the mat where he was finally finished in the fourth round – but Rockhold is no Jones. The Brazilian averages 1.29 takedowns per 15 minutes with an accuracy of 60%.

Despite averaging 0.77 submission attempts per 15 minutes and with just 14% of his wins coming via submissions, we saw against Jones how lethal Belfort can be off his back – his first round armbar attempt was the closest anyone’s come to beating the young light heavyweight champion.

But Belfort hasn’t made submissions an integral a part of his game like Rockhold. The American, who attempts 0.86 submissions every 15 minutes, has won 60% of his fights by grappling submissions and has never tapped-out – Belfort has tapped twice in his career.

Will time catch-up with Belfort?

Throughout his career Belfort has rarely completed three rounds – he usually wins by finishing the fight early.

However in the fights that have gone into the third round and beyond he has lost six out of seven times – 50% of his defeats have come on the judges scorecards.

Rockhold on the other hand, has looked strong from bell-to-bell in his two decision wins. In his last title defence against Tim Kennedy he maintained his dominance for the entire five-round contest.

Unless Belfort can finish the fight early, the advantage may swing towards the younger Rockhold as the fight progresses.

Click here to see the latest UFC on FX 8 odds

Break points play an important role in every tennis competition. In fact, it’s only a tiny minority of Grand Slam matches that finish without a break point being played. A study of 528 men’s singles matches over eight Grand Slam competitions (by Gareth Knight and Peter O’Donoghue of the Cardiff School of Sport) showed that an incredible 97.2% of performances involved a break point.

The most important observation from their study, however, was in comparing the winners of break points with the winners of other points. Players receiving a serve performed better than average when they were attacking a break point.

Their research showed that a player receiving a serve won on average 38% of points fired against him. When those same receivers were attempting to win a break point, however, their success rate rose to 42%.

Break points more influential than surface type?

A difference in scoring success between being at break point and facing a regular point at 4% could actually have a greater impact on receiving than courts’ surfaces – a much more popular discussion point for fans and commentators alike.

It’s widely accepted that a tennis court’s surface affects play. The grass of Wimbledon favours big serves, as the ball is harder to return when bouncing off the low-friction grass, while at the other end of the spectrum, Roland Garros’ clay slows the ball and launches it higher into the air, giving receivers more time to return the serve. The hard courts of the US and Australian Opens fall somewhere in between.

However, the impact of these is actually less than the difference between break points/normal points. Receivers on Wimbledon’s grass courts achieved a win rate of 41% on break points in 2008 and 2009, while normal points were successfully returned on just 35% of occasions. This means the server was – on average – winning 65% of normal points and 59.5% of break points.

Compare this to the other end of the spectrum – the return-friendly clay of the French Open. This competition saw 41.5% of break points won and 38.5% of normal points. This means 61.5% of normal points were won by the server, and 58.5% of break points.

Therefore the French Open service success rates are just 3.5% and 1% worse for the server than on the traditionally serve-friendly grass court. Compare them to the difference between serving on a normal or a break point – 5.5% and 3% – and we can see that the difference between normal points and break points is potentially more important than the difference of surface in terms of affecting who wins the point.

The US Open and Australian Opens – both on hard courts – are 42% (break point) 37.5% (normal) and 43% (break point) and 38.5% (normal) respectively.

Of course, the surface type plays an important role in every point, not just break points, and therefore it would be naïve to claim that the difference between break points and normal points is more significant than the surface over a whole match.

For the outcome of break points, however, merely the fact that it is a break point could be more important than whatever is under the player’s feet.

Lead EPL Trader: “The big difference between soccer and most other sports is that the concept of applying statistical analysis to soccer is quite a bit more immature than it is in baseball, basketball, or hockey,”

“A lot of bettors are pretty familiar with the analytics applied to fantasy sports in those areas and are ready to adapt them to betting, while in soccer the entire analytics concept is still picking up steam.”

Baseball is alien to many of Pinnacle Sports’ bettors, in part because it deviates so completely from soccer. Each play has a start and end point, with a focus on the battle between pitcher and hitter.

It’s that focus that makes baseball easier to analyse than a sport like soccer. Baseball is also noteworthy for its meticulous recording of every season, game, inning, at bat and pitch, which provides the kind of data availability soccer bettors can only dream of.

The articles at Pinnacle Sports attempt to provide some statistical insight into soccer betting. From examining how bookings affect soccer outcomes to finding new ways to analyse goalkeeper performance, our soccer articles are an important destination for anyone looking to improve their soccer betting results.

It’s not just a lack of information that the trader thinks is a problem – and not only for soccer. “I would suggest most bettors rely on gut too much, not just soccer bettors.” A human’s gut instincts are scientifically known as heuristics – something discussed in more detail here. Essentially, our heuristics – developed to help us survive and evolve with limited information – can actually play against us in our modern world.

How baseball helps soccer bettors

Lead Baseball Trader: “There is a lot of data in a form that is easier to utilize than in any other sport, there are so many different angles that the data could be looked at in order to find a pattern that a smart bettor could take advantage of.”

“You could look at something on the league level (Teams play better coming off of flights of less than hours), the team level (a certain team might struggle when they face left-handed pitchers), and the player level (some pitchers have more success pitching indoors, and others vice versa).”

“Since there is so much data available in baseball, a smart bettor may be able to figure out a real trend that in other sports you wouldn’t be able to tell if it’s a small sample size.”

The soccer trader agrees that similar patterns exist in the soccer world, listing Pythagorean expectation models and Simon Gleave’s ISG Coefficient as examples where data has offered predictive power in soccer circles. We’ll discuss these models in the coming weeks.

“The causation chains are much longer and more complex in soccer, and a lot of the current work in the field is trying to work out what really matters. On the other hand, the betting odds in soccer probably don’t take nearly as many stats into account as the ones in baseball, so if you develop new ways to look at the game, you stand a reasonable chance of profiting from it.”

…And there’s the point. By equipping yourself with data alongside the eye test, you better position yourself for success, especially when so few bettors are applying a valuable tool.

The data protects the user from faulty eye tests, while the eye tests act as both a starting point and confirmation – just ask baseball bettors. Apply the attitude to one sport, and you can then apply it to all.

Russia search for 27^th Ice Hockey World Championship

Defending Ice Hockey World Champion’s Russia are the 3.200* favourites with Pinnacle Sports to reclaim their title for the first time since 2007.

The Russians are the most successful nation in the history of the World Championships and are gunning to win their 27^th title – winning four as Russia and 26 before the break up of the Soviet Union.

Despite struggling between 1994 and 2004, which saw them win just one silver medal in 2002, Russia have won five medals in the last six years – three gold, one silver and one bronze.

Russia have been drawn alongside 2011 winners Finland (8.030*), 2012 runners-up Slovakia, USA, Germany, Latvia, France and Austria in the preliminary rounds hosted in Helsinki.

Can US break 79-year Duck?

The US have been frozen out of the medals for 79 years in the ice hockey World Championships. Although they did manage a medal in 1960 at the Squaw Valley Olympics, this is generally not considered an official World Championship competition (none were held between 1920and 1968).

The American’s are still classed amongst the ‘Big Seven’ hockey nations despite the others wining at least one World Championship since 2000 – Canada (2003, 2004 & 2007), the Czech Republic (2000, 2001, 2005 & 2010), Finland (2011), Russia (2008,2009 & 2012), Slovakia (2002) and Sweden (2006).

The US are certainly capable of winning major tournaments – they won the 1980 Olympic gold medal and beat Canada in the best-of-three finals of the 1996 World Cup. Despite not winning the World Championships, they have at least won a bronze medal twice in the last 49 years (1996 & 2004).

Last season, American players made up 23% of the NHL, their highest ever proportion, however, USA Hockey rarely taps into its best pool of players for the World Championships.

With the tournament usually held in Europe during the NHL playoffs, a number of players are unavailable to play for the USA – although this also affects other nations to some extent. The USA can be backed at 12.990* to end their World Championship drought.

Canada turn to Ruff to break European dominance?

With the last five winners coming from Europe, Canada will hope they can end this dominance.

The Canadians are the second-most decorated nation in the Ice Hockey World Championships with 23 wins. However, they have won only three titles since 1961.

Without a medal since 2009, Canada have turned to Lindy Ruff who was the last coach to win a medal when the Canadians claimed a silver medal after losing 2-1 to Russia.

Ruff was relieved of his duties at the Buffalo Sabres in February in his 16^th season on their bench and departed as the NHL’s longest-serving coach.

Canada’s world championship team is traditionally comprised of players whose NHL teams didn’t make the playoffs or were eliminated in the first round. However, like the US team, assembling the roster this year had its complications due to the NHL lockout.

Canada have been drawn alongside 2010 winners Czech Republic (9.750*), Sweden (4.450*), Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Slovenia and Belarus in the preliminary rounds hosted in Stockholm.

The Canadians can be backed at 3.720* with Pinnacle Sports to claim their 24^th title and go four better than their fifth place finish in 2012 under Brent Sutter.

2013 Ice Hockey World Championship format

Sixteen teams compete in two groups of eight during the preliminary rounds between the 3rd and 14th May with the top-four ranked teams of each group advancing to the quarter-finals.

The quarter-finals will take place on May 16th with the semi-finals following two days later on the 18th.

The winning teams of the semi-final games advance to the gold medal game while the semi-final losing teams play for bronze. Both games will be staged in Stockholm on May 19th.

To see the full format and schedule for the 2013 Ice Hockey World Championships click here.

Pinnacle Sports offer odds on every 2013 Ice Hockey World Championship game, click here to see the latest match odds.

1. Barcelona face the impossible

Barcelona’s 4-0 humbling at the Allianz Arena has left them an almost impossible task to qualify for the Champions League final – they’re set at 19.500* to progress.

The Catalan giants may be one of the greatest teams in history, but they face the daunting prospect of overturning a 4-0 deficit. No team has ever lost the first leg of a Champions League tie by a four or more goals deficit and progressed to the next round.

While overturning the four-goal deficit might be a mammoth task, the Spanish side are 1.971* to win the tie on May 1^st, with the odds suggesting the game will see more than three goals (1.862*).

2. Passing for passing’s sake

Barcelona have been lauded with praise over the past five years for their patient football philosophy, but the ‘tiki-taka’ style becomes a problem when their passing is without purpose.

The side has averaged 73% possession in the Champions League this season; and while Xavi and Andrés Iniesta had 88% and 83% pass completion rates in the first-leg, the Catalans only managed two shots on target. That was their joint-lowest in the Champions League this season.

3. Bayern’s brilliant 95% win ratio

Bayern Munich have won 19 of their last 20 matches in all competitions, with a solitary defeat coming against Arsenal in the Champions League last 16.

Apart from losing their first away game 3-1 to Bate Borisov, Munich haven’t lost on their travels this season in the Champions League.

4. Barcelona must double their scoring rate

Barcelona need to score at least four goals, but on average they have conceded 0.8 goals and scored two at home in the Champions League this season. However, Bayern on the road have conceded an average of just one goal per game and scored 1.6.

5. Counter-attack worries

Barcelona will have to find a way to deal with Munich’s effective pressing and counter-attacking football. The first-leg saw Barcelona push men forward in the second half to score an away goal and were inevitably undone on the break.

The danger for Barcelona in the second-leg is that Munich will be able to sit back and hit them on the break by utilising the pace of Franck Ribery and Arjen Robben.

6. Martinez: the unheralded hero

Bayern will look to win the physical battle like they did in the first-leg at the Allianz Arena. In the first game Javi Martinez stopped Iniesta orchestrating any clear-cut chances for Barcelona.

Martinez’s sheer energy and physicality typified the Germans approach. The Spaniard played almost solely a physical role – 20 players attempted more passes than him, but no one completed more tackles. He also committed twice as many fouls as any other player.

7. Height disadvantage a worry

One known problem for Barcelona over the past five years has been their lack of height, which has resulted in a weakness at defending set pieces. The Germans are far bigger physically as a team.  Last time Barcelona conceded 11 corners – many which could have been avoided – which resulted in Munich’s first two goals.

Final thoughts

Barcelona failed to create enough chances in the first-leg and will need to be more clinical and creative at the Nou Camp.

With such a lead Munich will look to enforce the same problems on Barca as they did in the first leg – they were physical, took advantage of their extra height at set-pieces, and then counter-attacked with wide players when Barcelona had men high up the pitch.

Click here for the latest Champions Semi-Final 2nd Leg odds.

Champion Jones big favourite with Pinnacle Sports

UFC Light heavyweight champion Jon “Bones” Jones is the big 1.121* favourite to retain his title and inflict a 12th career defeat on Chael Sonnen.

Jones will be looking to inflict payback after the two fighters went head-to-head as coaches for Season 17 of “The Ultimate Fighter” – Team Sonnen beat Team Jones in the semi-finals resulting in an all-Team Sonnen final.

Bones (17-1-0) will be making a fifth defense of the title he won at UFC 128, with an unbeaten run that stretches eight bouts, while Sonnen arrives on the back of a title fight defeat to Anderson Silva at UFC 148 – he is 0-3 in title fights between both the UFC and WEC.

Jones is still undefeated in open combat, with his only loss coming via disqualification against Matt Hamill. Despite dominating the fight, Jones was disqualified for a downward elbow strike.

The two have been embroiled in a war of words after Jones rejected Sonnen the opportunity to fight as a replacement for Dan Henderson at UFC 152. After stating he would never give Sonnen a title fight, it appears the challenger has ruffled the usually calm Jones enough until he relented.

Sonnen (27-12-1) will be fighting at light heavyweight for the first time since 2005, after spending the bulk of his career at middleweight. The 7.550* odds with Pinnacle Sports suggest the difficulty he faces with the adjustment in weight and the prospect of fighting the awesome Jones.

12″ reach advantage will cause problems

The champion will enter the cage at 6’4″ with a 3″ height advantage. And despite both men needing to meet the 205lbs weight limit, Jones is a big light heavyweight and cuts a lot of weight to make the cut, while Sonnen is naturally smaller after spending most of his time at 185lbs.

The biggest advantage for Jones, however, is his remarkable reach. At 84.5″, the defending champion has a 12″ reach benefit over Sonnen. Many fighters and pundits alike have argued that the advantage is simply too much of a benefit in the light heavyweight division, and Sonnen will be very aware of his reach handicap.

Chael has earned accolades as a fighter for having one of the best takedown games in the sport, however to get in close he must get past the arms of Jones. Coupled with his abnormal reach, Jones utilises an unorthodox style of grappling that Sonnen has never dealt with before.

Who holds the striking advantage?

Jones holds a big advantage over his opponent in the striking department, with his reach, boxing and speed all superior to Sonnen’s.  The champion’s striking has progressed impressively since making his debut, out-striking Mauricio Rua, Rampage Jackson and Lyoto Machida.

‘Bones’ has won 47% of his fights by KO and lands an impressive 3.93 strikes per minute with an accuracy of 52%. Defensively, Jones gets tagged 1.44 times per minute and rebuffs an impressive 67% of his opponent’s attacks.

Despite possessing reasonable boxing skills, Sonnen has never been known for his striking ability. Just seven of the 36-year-old’s wins have come via KO – he lands 3.24 strikes per minute with 44% accuracy. Defensively the challenger absorbs just 0.96 strikes per minute and avoids 67% of his opponent’s strikes.

However, he has been knocked out three times in his career against Anderson Silva, Terry Martin and Jeremy Horn.

Grappling battle will be key

Despite both fighters being closely matched in terms of pure grappling, not many are better than challenger Sonnen. Renowned as a wrestler, Sonnen has a great ability in taking his opponent to the mat.

So far the best wrestler Jones has faced is Rashad Evans – who only attempted four takedowns, all of which were unsuccessful. Sonnen will be busier, and will try and suffocate Jones like he did against Anderson Silva for nearly five straight rounds at UFC 117.

Taking Jones down is no easy feat to accomplish, however – no one has ever been able to do it. Despite not facing anyone as aggressive as Sonnen, the likelihood of a takedown is still slim. Jones is simply too large and too strong.

The fact that Jones is very capable at grappling also adds to the challenge for Sonnen. The 25-year-old averages 2.54 takedowns per 15 minutes with 64% accuracy, compared to 3.94 takedowns and 60% accuracy by Sonnen.

For the 35-year-old to have a genuine chance of victory he will need to take this fight to the ground.

Sonnen could be forced to ‘tap’

Another mismatch. So far in his career Jones has won six fights by submission, including four of his last six fights, all of which come against top 10 ranked fighters. Sonnen in comparison has lost eight of his 12 defeats by submission and has won only one by making his opponent tap.

The champion is busier, averaging 0.88 submission attempts every 15 minutes, while Sonnen averages just 0.26 attempts.

Both fighters will be in prime condition

Sonnen is renowned for being a fighter with great cardio and plenty of gas in his engine. The fact he won’t be cutting weight to make the fight will only add to that perception.

The challenger has trained himself to fight at the same speed for five straight rounds, which will give Jones something different to consider.

Jones is no slouch when it comes to fighting for an extended period of time, but he’s never really been pushed to the brink. If the fight comes down to the judge’s card, Sonnen’s ability to force the pace and grind his opponent down could be the difference-maker. Sonnen has won a remarkable 16 fights via decision compared to just the three of Jones.

Bahrain International Circuit: cars pushed to the limit

Sunday’s Bahrain International Circuit takes an April slot on the schedule for 2013, having previously alternated between the first, third and fourth race of the calendar since its inception in 2004.

The Middle Eastern circuit has a number of key characteristics that will present a different challenge for the teams than the previous three races. The track is made up of four long straights, all of which end in a high braking zone, offering clear overtaking opportunities. There are also a number of challenging medium-speed corners that require good car balance.

The track suits a set-up that sees a compromise between straight-line speed and cornering grip. With drivers at full throttle for just 50% of the lap during the race (and 57% in qualifying), the demands on the engine are less extensive than half of the courses in the competition.

Although the throttle might not be an issue, high temperature and low humidity could provide major challenges for the engines, while the circuit’s stop-start nature places a premium on the brakes – managing brake-wear is key.

Extreme temperature can play a part

With air temperature regularly close to 40 degrees (Celsius), the race weekend is a demanding Grand Prix for both humans and machines alike.

Being located in the middle of the desert means the track is frequently exposed to sand drifts, which create a number of challenges for the cars. Ever-changing grip levels coupled with swirling winds can affect a car’s balance and aerodynamics. Therefore teams must have flexible pit stop strategies allowing them the opportunity to react to any situation.

The sweltering heat and humidity also affects drivers and pit crews, with the slightest mistake potentially costing a win, ensuring all segments of the team are up-to the demands of the Bahrain Grand Prix is perhaps the teams greatest challenge.

Each of the previous eight Bahrain race weekends have been dry. The forecast suggests nothing different is expected this weekend. As always, however, the climate could change, so it is advisable to monitor the situation.

Will tyre wear prove problematic … Again?

The big story this season – apart from team orders – is the issue of tyre-wear. After a poor showing in China last time out, where the soft tyre lasted just seven laps, Pirelli have opted to use the medium and hard compounds as used in Malaysia.

With high track and air temperatures at the Bahrain International Circuit alongside a track surface that is made dirty by sand from the surrounding desert, it is one of the most demanding tracks of the year for the tyres.

Amid such tyre degradation, and the ever-changing track conditions, it is expected teams will utilise a three-stop strategy. Last year the top five finishers selected a three-stop strategy all starting on the softer tyre compound, while the top-placed two-stopper came sixth.

Qualification as a race performance indicator at Bahrain Grand Prix

We have already proved there was a good correlation between qualifying position and final race positions throughout the 2012 season (click to read here).

We have now used the same model to examine the last eight Bahrain Grand Prix to indicate how much influence Formula One bettors can place on the relevance of qualifying at Bahrain as a race performance indicator.

The data shows a strong 0.68 correlation between qualifying and race position at the Bahrain Grand Prix. Interestingly the correlation is the strongest compared to the previous Grand Prix this season – Australia (0.45), Malaysia (0.48) and China (0.59).

Remarkably 88% of races at the Bahrain International Circuit had a correlation above 0.5, which stresses that qualifying provided a significant predictor of a drivers’ race performance for seven of the eight Grand Prix held at the track.

The 2010 Grand Prix showed a near perfect correlation at 0.91. The race was the opening to the season, which Fernando Alonso won after starting third on the grid. With near perfect conditions and only 21 overtaking maneuvers throughout the race, eight of the top ten qualifiers finished in the points.

The weakest correlation of 0.26 came at the 2005 race. The result was skewed despite Fernando Alonso winning the race from pole, after seven drivers were forced to retire, while Ruben Barrichello came from last on the grid to finish ninth.

The circuit is not known for its overtaking opportunities with an average of just 24.5 per race. However, with 72 overtakes last year (5^th highest in 2012) the introduction of unpredictable tyres and unpredictable track conditions, has given the driver and teams an opportunity to gain an advantage by applying aggressive race strategies.

50% of drivers who qualified on pole at the Bahrain International Circuit over the past eight years have won the race, while the average finishing position is 2 – which highlights the difficulty of overtaking.

Other variables to consider

Both Red Bull’s Mark Webber 17.060* and Sauber’s Esteban Gutierrez will have grid penalties at the Bahrain Grand Prix after the Formula 1 stewards penalised them for causing collisions in the Chinese Grand Prix.

Webber will drop three places for his collision with Toro Rosso’s Jean-Eric Vergne while Gutierrez will be demoted five places at for his crash with Force India’s Adrian Sutil on Lap 4.

In China, Fernando Alonso – 3.510* on our Bahrain GP outright odds – claimed his first win of 2013 and the Spaniard favours the Bahrain International Circuit. Alonso is the most successful driver in Bahrain with three wins – 2005, 2006 and 2010.

The “prancing horse” is the most decorated car around this track with Ferrari winning 50% of the races – Alonso’s teammate Felipe Massa 21.080* has also won twice here in 2007 and 2008.

Three-time world champion Sebastian Vettel 3.610* remains on course to defend his title in 2013. Despite finishing fourth in China, Vettel still leads the drivers’ championship after three races.

Lewis Hamilton can be backed at 11.040* to win his first Grand Prix for new team Mercedes. However, the Brit has struggled historically in Bahrain with a second on debut in 2007 being his best finish – Hamilton’s average finishing position at Bahrain is 6.4.

Despite having a damaged front wing for the majority of the race in China Kimi Raikkonen 4.920* managed to finish second. After holding off Hamilton with little downforce, it showcased that running at its full potential the Lotus is a car capable of mounting a serious title charge.

With the potential for unrest due to the political instability it will be worth monitoring the situation to see if any teams’ preparations are hindered – 12 months ago Force India were caught up in an incident which saw there van hit with a petrol bomb.  Tmhe two drivers subsequently didn’t partake in free practice 2 leaving them at a disadvantage for the race.

Khan heavy favourite on home soil

Amir Khan (27-3, 19 KOs) makes his long awaited return to the UK after two years fighting in the US when he takes on Julio Diaz in Sheffield on April 27th.

Khan’s last fight on home soil saw him win a scrappy affair with Paul McCloskey via a technical decision due to a clash of heads. After beating Zab Judah, Khan then suffered two defeats in succession against Lamont Peterson and Danny Garcia in America.

Following the losses, Khan split from Freddie Roach claiming that the legendary trainer was not giving him enough attention – Roach also trained Manny Pacquiao.

After the split Khan teamed up with defensive master Virgil Hunter to hone his defence, which had previously exposed his suspect chin in his two knockout defeats against Breidis Prescott and Garcia.

Khan’s first fight under the stewardship of Hunter saw him stop the previously undefeated Carlos Molina in Los Angeles. Now ‘King’ Khan is the massive 1.111* favourite to beat Diaz.

Diaz hoping to roll back the years

Despite entering the ring as the 7.010* underdog, Julio Diaz (40-7-1, 29 KOs) firmly expects to shock the world of boxing and put and end to Khan’s resurrection.

Last time out the Mexican pugilist drew against Shawn Porter, which convinced his doubters that he wasn’t finished. After suffering three defeats in five fights, Diaz is now undefeated in three and looking for a last hurrah.

The former world champion is a tough but smart fighter, and will attempt to drag Khan into a war and unsettle the Brit from his game plan.

Tale of the tape

Khan is renowned for his rapid punch speed and will look to get in and out before Diaz can counter. With a one-inch reach advantage, the Bolton boxer will look to impose his dominance early in the fight.

In terms of power, Diaz is considered to pack more of a punch, despite Khan having a slightly better knockout percentage of 63.33% compared to Diaz’s of 60.42%.

Both men are prone to being stopped with Khan not making the count on two occasions, while Diaz has been stopped in five of his seven defeats.

Khan enters unchartered waters at 143lb

It’s no secret that Diaz is seen as a safe tune-up fight for Khan’s return to the UK – the Golden Boy selected a non-top 15 ranked fighter. The pair will fight at a 143lb catchweight with the idea that Khan will gradually ease his way up to welterweight.

However, Khan has never fought above 140lbs in his career and has been knocked out at both 135lbs and 140lbs. Diaz himself has fought most of his career at lightweight but stepped up to welterweight against Porter and looked solid with the extra load.

While Khan has reportedly been working hard on his defence, we have yet to see any evidence in the ring. Molina was too small to really hurt Khan, but Diaz is a different challenge and Khan will have to box smart.

Could the crowd prove to be Khan’s downfall?

Returning to the UK, Khan will be hoping to put on a show and build his legacy after two years away. However, he may be too eager to impress.

When Khan has fought in front of large raucous crowds in the past he has been prone to losing his game plan and fighting in a reckless manner, notably against Garcia, Peterson and Maidana.

If Khan can’t control his emotions, Diaz will be ready to take advantage and test his defence. When he fought Molina, he started well but slipped back into old ways – Khan was tagged too many times in the first seven rounds before Molina tired.

If the same happens against Diaz, Khan could become the second Englishman to fall flat this year after David Price’s embarrassing failure against Tony Thompson.

Click here for the latest Khan vs. Diaz betting odds

0 – Anchor away

The Masters is the only major that no player has won using a belly or broom-handle putter. Interestingly, three of the last five major champions used a belly putter – Keegan Bradley 28.320* at the 2011 U.S. PGA Championship, Webb Simpson 85.620* at the 2012 U.S. Open and Ernie Els 126.40* at the 2012 British Open. With the putter under review, this may be the last chance a player using this type of putter will have to win a major.

1 – Tough experience for a rookie

Only one rookie has ever won the Masters; Fuzzy Zoeller in 1979. The American beat the odds in 1979, and despite Australian Jason Day 60.250* finishing 2^nd in 2011, it appears that course knowledge has a pivotal bearing on performance at Augusta. Pinnacle Sports suggest the likes of Nicolas Colsaerts 111.190*, Russell Henley 241.170* and Branden Grace 228.070* will struggle to break the trend on their debuts.

4 – Leading from the start is tough

Just four champions – Craig Wood (1941), Arnold Palmer (1960), Jack Nicklaus (1972) and Ray Floyd (1976) – have led for all four rounds of the Masters.

5 – Watery graves

Five holes – 11, 12, 13, 15 & 16 – on Augusta’s back nine have water waiting to trap any errant shots. Many Masters hopefuls have met a watery end during the 77 years of action at Augusta. (13) The score taken by Tom Weiskopf on the par-3 12th hole in the 1980 Masters.

7 – Left-handers get it right

Only seven major tournaments have been won by left-handers. However, they have won five of the last 10 green jackets. Could Phil Mickelson 13.000* or Bubba Watson 39.420* claim another major win?

8 – Long time since Woods won

It’s been eight years since Tiger Woods 5.050* won his last Masters. After a great start to the 2013 season – winning three PGA Tour events – can Woods win his 15^th major and fifth at Augusta? Woods is considered to be putting as well this year as he has at anytime in the past, read here how loss aversion affects putting.

12 – Biggest winning margin

Twelve was the biggest winning margin set by Tiger Woods when he won his first Masters back in 1997. Woods’ four-day score is also a record at 270.

14 – Young Guan set for Masters

14-year-old Guan Tianlang was not even born when Woods won his first Masters in 1997. The youngster from China will become the youngest ever entrant to the Masters after winning the Asia-Pacific Amateur back in November to earn a spot in the field.

14 (again) – Settled by a playoff

The Masters has gone to a playoff on 14 occasions. The last time the tournament was decided by a playoff was last year when Watson beat Louis Oosthuizen 29.470* to claim his first major win.

15 – Another missed European opportunity?

Before Martin Laird 86.640* won the Valero Texas Open, Americans had won the previous 14 events on the PGA Tour this year. No European has won the Masters since Jose-Maria Olazabal 14 years ago. Will it be 15 years without a European green jacket winner?

23 – One-shot wonders

There have been 23 hole-in-ones recorded at the Masters. Interestingly 15 of these have come at hole 16, a par 3 of 170 yards. Interested in how bettors and bookmakers underweight rare events? Click here to read about the infamous Hole In One Gang who in 1991 made a tidy profit from taking advantage of ill informed bookmakers on the probability of a hole in one at a tournament.

25-39 – Age trend

Every Masters winner this century was aged between 25 and 39. That range covers most of the leading candidates, but notably not Rory McIlroy 9.430* or Mickelson.

46 – Golden oldie

At the tender age of 46, Jack Nicklaus became the oldest winner of the Masters in 1986. This year eleven players over the age of 46 will compete for the green jacket.

63 & 75 – One round doesn’t win or ruin your chances

63 is the joint Augusta course round record set by Nick Price in 1986 and Greg Norman in 1996. Neither man went on to win. 75 is the highest first-round score of an eventual winner, when Craig Stadler carded it in 1982. Read here how golfers can be affected by luck and regression during golf tournaments.

Click here to see the latest 2013 Masters odds

1 – Rookies have struggled in the past

Only Welshman Terry Griffiths has won the Crucible in his debut year – back at the old-style venue. After qualifying for the World Championships in 1979 he beat Dennis Taylor 24-16 to become the first world champion to win at his first attempt.

1 (again) – Whitewashes are rare

It’s almost unbelievable, but there has been only one whitewash in the tournament’s illustrious history (excluding qualifiers). That came in 1992 when John Parrott beat Eddie Charlton 10-0 in the first round.

2 – 147s rarely strike twice

147s at the World Championships are moments to savour, however we had to wait until the 2008 tournament to witness the first ranking competition to produce two 147 breaks in the latter stages.

First Ronnie O’Sullivan scored a maximum against Mark Williams in the second round and then Ali Carter matched his achievement in the quarter-finals against Peter Ebdon. This is strange given the long format, but it could reflect the pressure in the competition.

2 (again) – Defending the title is tough going 

Two days before the deadline for entry to this year’s World Championship, Ronnie O’Sullivan confirmed that he would defend his title, despite having played only one competitive match in the past 12 months. But defending the crown has proved difficult in the past.

Since 1977 only two players have successfully defended the world title: Steve Davis (1988 to 1989), and Stephen Hendry (from 1992 to 1996). Many commentators argue that snooker is now more competitive, making defending even less likely.

3 – Nail-biting action

In the previous 36 World Championships, three finals have gone down to the wire with the trophy being decided in the final frame.

Most famously in 1985 when ‘Golden Nugget’ Steve Davis lost out to Dennis Taylor on the final black (and in doing so, failed to defend his title). Nine years later in 1994, Stephen Hendry beat Jimmy White 18-17, and then finally in 2002 it was Hendry who was on the losing end as Peter Ebdon claimed his only title.

3 (another one) – UK players have dominated

Remarkably, there have only ever been three champions outside the UK since the tournament has been hosted at the Crucible. Canadian Cliff Thorburn became the first in 1980 when he beat Alex Higgins 18-16, 17 years later in 1997 Ken Doherty of Ireland beat Stephen Hendry 18-12, while Australian Neil Robertson became champion in 2010 after defeating Graeme Dott 18-13.

4 – Magic O’Sullivan

Ronnie O’Sullivan is the only multiple finalist in the modern era to have never lost in a final. The ‘Rocket’ has won all four finals – 2001, 2004, 2008 and 2012.

6 – Not so magic White

In comparison to O’Sullivan, Jimmy White has reached six finals – 1984, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 – but has never won. The closest he came was 17–18 in 1994 against Stephen Hendry, on his 32nd birthday. He is now 50 and a rank outsider to complete his career dream.

7 – Seventh heaven for Hendry

Scotsman Stephen Hendry retired last year as the most successful player in Crucible history with seven World Championship titles – 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. Both O’Sullivan and John Higgins are in pursuit of his record with four apiece, but still have a long way to go before they can overtake the ‘greatest crucible player’ of all time – especially in the increasingly competitive modern game.

10 – Maximum performance

Since Cliff Thorburn achieved the tournaments first 147 in 1983, there have been nine other maximums recorded at the World Championships (excluding qualifiers). This is not a bad ratio when you consider this means a maximum has been recorded every 2.2 years since the first in 1983.

However, with the standard of play dramatically improving since the Millennium, six maximums have been scored in 10 years – an average of one every 1.6 years.

21 – Youngest winner

Stephen Hendry remains the youngest ever World Champion at 21-years and 106 days. Hendry beat Jimmy White 18-12 in the 1990 final.

45 – Golden Oldie

Last year at 36-years-old Ronnie O’Sullivan became the oldest player to win the world title since his former mentor Ray Reardon in 1978, aged 45. Despite trailing 7-2, Reardon regained the title in 1978 by beating Doug Mountjoy 13-9.

83 – Century breakers

There have been 1358 century breaks at the Crucible, with an average of 37.72 per tournament. However, with the standard of play improving, the average has risen to 70 per year for the last five years.

The 2009 World Snooker Championships holds the record for the highest number of century breaks at the Crucible. John Higgins, Mark Allen, Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby contributed and impressive 41 century breaks of the 83 in total.

150-1 – Surprise winners

Surprise winners emerge in all sports and snooker is no different. Apart from Terry Griffiths’ win in 1979, which we have already mentioned, there has been two other shock World Champions. Both Joe Johnson and Shaun Murphy, who won in 1986 and 2005 respectively, were priced at 150-1 before the tournament began.

320 – Seconds (Fastest 147)

320 seconds is all it took Ronnie O’Sullivan to produce a breathtaking maximum in 1997 against Mick Price to record the fastest ever recorded in the professional game.

Click here to read the basics on snooker betting.

Getting the rub of the green

Luck plays some part in how all individual sporting events pan out, but more so in golf than in almost any other. Getting the rub of the green can literally have a huge impact on outcomes.

It’s a general rule in sports that the greater the number of interacting elements, the greater the role of luck; this puts golf on top of the watch list, and its unique characteristics explain why:

• Golf is an exclusively outdoor sport, so is subject to the unpredictable nature of weather
• Tournaments last four days with no consistency to tee times for each competitor, so it is unlikely that players will experience consistent conditions
• A golf course covers vast distances with widely differing surfaces
• Pin-positions change each round
• The field of potential winners is large by betting standards – 95 for the US Masters, which is actually the smallest field of the four majors
• The scoring format of 72 hole tournaments is such that a player can lead throughout 71 holes yet potentially lose on the outcome of the final hole.

Given such a large number of random variables that can impact a golfer’s score, it is no wonder that the sport is notoriously difficult to predict. As a consequence, this can produce significant potential betting returns.

18 of the last 19 major winners going back to the 2008 Open Championship were unique (the exception was Rory McIlroy), and only Ernie Els, Angel Cabrera and Phil Mickelson had won previous majors. To further illustrate this point, see the following list of big outsiders that won Majors in the last decade, and the particular circumstances:

Why you need talent & luck to succeed

It isn’t a new idea to suggest success in any sphere – golf included – requires a mixture of talent and luck summarised as:

Success = talent & luck

If you accept the relevance of this to the world of golf, bettors must also take luck into account alongside handicapping talent. But how do you quantify the element of luck?

One method would be to understand the importance of regression. For example, if you were to wait for completed Round 1 scores at Augusta, you might infer from players scoring below par that their talent on the day – judged on that narrow criteria – was above the average participant. Using our formula for success, we should also appreciate that good fortune played some part.

By the same token, those players who shot over par would be judged to have performed below the average, but poor luck would also have contributed. This can produce these broad statements:

Above average score for Round 1 = above average performance & good luck

Below average score on Round 1 = below average performance & poor luck

As bettors’ aim to make accurate predictions, we then need to use this analysis to predict what might happen for Round 2. If you assume that performances remain constant (and this is a broad assumption), luck becomes the variable element, which you have no way of exactly measuring other than to say that with a best guess that it would be very unlikely to be the same as on Round 1.

You can elaborate to say that those players that played above average on Round 1 would play equally well on Round 2, but that the luck they enjoyed wouldn’t hold so their scores wouldn’t be as impressive.

The inverse would be true of those under-performers from the first round, whose scores would (on average) marginally improve, as they would not experience the same degree of bad luck.

The interesting observation for bettors is that regression suggests that scores of players for Round 2 are more likely to be closer to the average score than the evidence on which it is based (Round 1 for that player). This moderation is the influence of regression to the mean, which we should expect to be more noticeable with extreme scores.

It is important to note that regression doesn’t guarantee anything, however. Some players who do well on Round 1 will do equally well or better on Round 2, and visa-versa, but on average – if we accept the role of luck – scores will regress back towards the mean.

Regression & the Sports Illustrated Jinx

As stated throughout, we are dealing with average expectation, but regression is nonetheless a statistical fact – a particularly misunderstood one. A great illustration of regression in action is shown in the Sports Illustrated Jinx, an urban myth that suggests that a disproportionately large number of the stars that appear on the cover of the famous magazine go on to suffer a decline in their fortunes.

This has nothing to do with jinxes, however, the reality is more mundane and can be explained by simple regression. A large number of cover features should be expected to fall from their giddy heights as the performances that led to their feature are extremes from which they should statistically be expected to regress.

Regression is certainly something that should be considered within a tournament such as the US Masters, but not across a season where luck should average out and the impact of talent dominate. This is even more relevant over longer time periods, hence multiple major winners like Tiger Woods.

But extreme as their talent is, it doesn’t insulate them from impact of luck over the shorter timescale in what is such a uniquely challenging sport for both players and bettors.

See the latest odds to win the US Masters.

The red card: a soccer game changer

While everyone understands the circumstantial effect of red cards – the immediate loss of a player – statistical analysis helps us better understand the extent to which teams are negatively impacted when they receive a red card.

Unsurprisingly, the team that had a player sent off gained fewer points per game. Over the 60 Premier League games where a team saw a red card in 2012, 20% dropped points at the final whistle when compared to their predicted points (based on the score prior to sending off).

For the 20 teams that were drawing at the time of receiving a red card in last seasons Premier League, 65% went on to lose, 30% held on for a draw and just 5% – one team – managed to win.

The negative impact of a red card on a team is also evident in the amount of goals they score and concede. A study by Titman et al. (2012) highlighted that teams playing against a red-carded rival benefited by a 64.5% scoring rate increase.

Previous research looking at a number of Premier League seasons also indicates that the longer teams have a player deficit, the worse off they will be. If a team receives a red card in the first minute, their average goal difference in the game would be reduced by about 1.5 goals. This is reduced to 0.85 and 0.62 if a team is effected by a red card at half-time and 60 minutes respectively.

These figures can enable live bettors to gauge whether live odds have accurately changed to reflect red card incidents, and potentially to measure the significance of yellow cards, the most common precursor to a red.

Don’t underestimate the importance of yellow cards

With the knowledge that red cards can dramatically change the expected course of a match, and given a yellow card can lead to a red, bettors should understand the importance of a yellow card as more than a pause in play.

As yellow cards increase during a game, the in-play probability of a player being dismissed grows. Titman et al. (2012) stated a yellow card to any player on a team in the Premier League more than doubles the hazard of a straight red card to any other player on that team.

Interestingly, Titman also discovered that a team’s booking rate increases by 25% if the opposing team receives a yellow card, which reinforces the notion that referees have a tendency to ‘even up’ decisions during the game.

How cards impact on a manager’s tactics

When a team loses a player to a red card, the manager must react to the situation and change his tactics accordingly. Like a manager, a bettor should judge how important the player sent off is to the team, how the card impacts the shape of the team, what can be done to mitigate the situation and what bearing the sending off will have on the opposition.

A perfect example of how a red card affects the game can be seen when analyzing the recent last 16 Champions League second-leg game between Manchester United and Real Madrid.

The Reds were controlling the game – United nullified Madrid’s potent attack by using Danny Welbeck to restrict Madrid’s most creative player Xabi Alonso – after Sergio Ramos had scored an own goal to give Alex Ferguson’s team a 2-1 aggregate lead.

However, the game turned when United winger Nani was sent off for a dangerous challenge on 56 minutes. Not only did United have a man less, but they also had to move Welbeck to left midfield, in order to preserve their second bank of four – allowing Alonso to roam free and become more creative.

Known for reacting to situations quickly, it took Madrid’s manager Jose Mourinho just four minutes to make a substitution – replacing Alvaro Arbeloa with Luka Modric, and swapping Sami Khedira to right back.

The change turned the game as Modric controlled the centre of midfield with intricate passing sequences, and scored the equaliser with a long-range strike. After equalising, Real were in the ascendency and retained the ball superbly, scoring their second goal within 13 minutes of Nani’s red card.

Ferguson had the better of Mourinho when it was 11 vs. 11, however the red card changed the game and after the sending off Mourinho reacted both immediately and intelligently.

Are away teams at a disadvantage? 

It is known that teams playing at home perform better than away – read about Home Field Advantage here – but how much help do they get from the referee?

Studies highlight that the probability of receiving a red card is different between home and away teams. Data collected from the Champions League from 2002-2007 showed that in only 24.3% of games did the home team incur more yellow cards than the away team.

In that period home teams received a red card in 6.42% of games, while the away teams received them in 11.82% of games. This means that away teams picked up red cards 84% more often than home sides. Interestingly, in 82.89% of games there were no red cards.

Research on the Bundesliga (Anders & Rotthoff) from 2004 to 2009 highlighted that the effect of cards on the home team is different to that of the away side.

Titman et al. (2012) found that a home red card increases an away teams’ scoring rate by 60% and decreases the home sides’ scoring rate by 17%.

In comparison, a red card for the away team sees the home team’s chances of scoring increase by 69% and the away team’s chances decrease by a massive 42%, which shows the handicap for away teams is more severe.

Final thoughts

This article contradicts the repeated soccer cliché that playing against ten men is more difficult than eleven. Unlike a goal, a red card merely presents an opportunity and a challenge to the respective teams.

Over many games a team will benefit from facing a team with fewer players, but in a one-off game the team need to exploit their advantage, which may require a different tactical approach. Basically, a red card is a potential game changer, but the game still has to change.

The data on the impact of red cards to goal probability should be of special interest to live soccer bettors, as this can be used in conjunction with subject analysis of specific game dynamics to help gain in-play advantage.

With the knowledge that referees tend to favour home teams when disciplining players, it is important to look at influences on the referee. Because of inconsistencies across individual referees’ tendency for cards, profiling referees is important, however this is more than likely accounted for in the bookmaker’s prices, so investigating influences on the referee themselves could be profitable – this will be discussed in a future edition of The Pulse.

Click here for the latest Champions League odds online.

The psychology behind this “loss aversion” is simple: humans hate to have things taken away from them. As such, if an outcome is framed as “losing”, sportsmen and women will perform extra-hard to avoid it. There’s been a lot of research on the subject, but one the most potent real-world examples is on the PGA Tour, which demonstrates the effect of loss aversion on professional golfers.

After studying 2,525,161 putts from the PGA Tour between 2004 and 2009, researchers Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer observed that a disproportionate number of putts for par were completed compared with attempts for a birdie. A huge 82.9% of putts for par were successfully completed, while just 28.3% birdie attempts were sunk.

Of course, not all putts are equal, and it’s likely that many of the birdie attempts were from more difficult distances than the par attempts. However, even when the researchers averaged-out the distances, golfers still putted 3.7% more shots for par than for birdies. But why?

The researchers theorised that loss aversion must play a part. While both situations – missing a birdie and missing a par putt – mean that the player is one shot worse-off, psychologically, sinking a birdie will always be considered as “winning” a point – putting the golfer one-under. A bogey will always be seen as losing a point (one-over), and therefore the golfers seem to up their game for losing situations.

Loss aversion also leads to another golf-specific issue. Player’s birdie putts – when missed – tend to go short, putting them in a more advantageous position should they miss the hole. Over-hitting risks putting the player in a position that could be even worse.

Loss aversion for other sports

Loss aversion is easily quantifiable in golf, but it’s also a phenomenon that can have a big impact on a variety of sports and situations. An obvious example is towards the end of soccer matches.

If a team is winning, they tend to become more defensive towards the end of a game, rather than try to attack to extend their lead. This happens despite the fact that league structures reward teams who score more (goal differences) or in two-legged ties where aggregate scores can prove vital.

To some extent, it also goes in the face of common sense – teams who have been performing well alter their tactics, despite their original strategy giving them the advantage to begin with.

The change in tactic can be attributed to human heuristic called endowment theory. Endowment theory states that a person – or in this case, a team – becomes even more loss averse when they have already gained something. Therefore because teams start games at 0-0, when they score a goal (or are endowed with it), they reframe the match in the new terms.

Considering their 1-0 advantage, the team’s desire to score more goals lessens, because a win and two goals is only marginally more valuable than a win and one goal, but both are worth more than a draw,

Loss aversion could also explain the tactics employed in the first leg of a two-legged tie. Away teams tend to approach the game defensively, opting to counter-attack, while home teams strive to avoid conceding an “away goal”, which is valued at more than a home one.

Reference points, not three points

The avoidance of conceding in a two-legged cup-tie is a good example of how it’s not just for the end result that can be influenced by loss aversion, but also the desired outcome.

If a team expects to win a game 3-0, the side could be loss averse to anything but that final outcome. This is because that score is a “reference point” – the outcome the team expects to achieve. Anything less than that outcome would be a disappointment. Likewise, if a home team in a cup-tie wants to avoid conceding, loss aversion wouldn’t just apply to the match outcome but also to conceding a goal.

An example of loss aversion for tennis

One of the biggest examples of loss aversion occurs in tennis, usually twice per service game. Tennis stars across the spectrum (and almost without exception) utilise a slower second serve to avoid committing a double fault and automatically losing the point.

However, while only 65% of first serves go in, 75% of those points go in favour of the server. For second serves, the result is 50/50. That means the potential win percentage for a fast first serve and a slow second serve is 66.3%. If two fast serves are used, it’s 75%.

This loss aversion in tennis serves actually costs players an 8.7% chance of winning the service point.

Loss Aversion and Bettors

Loss aversion isn’t limited to professional golfers and soccer teams. Bettors can also suffer the influence and make irrational decisions because of it. We’ll be discussing that in more detail in the coming weeks.

The characters listed above are all at the top of their respective professions, but why have they managed to put together winning runs above and beyond their – sometimes equally – talented peers, both past and present? The truth is that alongside their talent, luck is a key factor in establishing winning streaks.

Replacing characters with coins

If you step away from the performances and personalities of professional sports and think of these runs as mathematical occurrences, it’s much easier to understand how our perception of winning streaks is skewed. Take the ‘Pretty Boy’ for now, and imagine matches as coin tosses rather than skill-based competitions.

If you were to toss a coin 100 times, probability dictates that you’ll have a 75% chance of seeing a streak of at least 6 heads (or tails) occurring in a row, and a 10% probability of witnessing a streak of at least 10 consecutive heads (or tails).

Imagine if that sequence were shown to you in the following fashion, with “O” representing heads and “X” representing tails:

As a human, you’re naturally drawn towards the easiest definable pattern – the big sequence of Os in the fourth row. Does that mean this period is more notable than the others? Did heads take the initiative? Did it show great skill? No – it is a coin. Probability dictates that sometimes these sequences just happen.

For tennis players, boxers, managers etc., any run of form – although winning streaks are particularly poignant – can skew our judgment in a similar manner to the pattern above, and also cause us to overestimate the chances of the pattern continuing.

For example, having replaced O’s and X’s with W’s and L’s (for wins and losses), look at the following pattern:

On your first impression, what result do you believe fills in the “???”? Most people would imagine that the winning would continue. Now take a look at this image:

What do you imagine fills in the ??? here? Naturally, we continue the pattern and enter “WWWWW” – even though anything could fill this space. Why? Purely because the human brain naturally creates patterns and sticks to them – even if there’s no rationale behind it.

Click here to read how a second piece of the human psyche, The Gambler’s Fallacy, also plays a part in our decision.

The skill factor

Of course, no one would suggest that the greatest sports personalities achieved their feats through randomness alone. It’s obvious that their talent has allowed them to be in a position to achieve such feats. In essence, their skill makes them a weighted coin, more disposed to landing on “H” (or win) than some others, but it’s by no means a definite outcome.

For example, when Rafael Nadal plays on a clay court he could be considered a very heavily weighted coin. His clay-court win percentages over the last five tennis seasons were 96%, 93%, 100%, 92%, 96%. With an average of 95.4%, it’s obvious Nadal’s wins aren’t caused by luck, but chance could have played a big part in his perfect season in 2010.

So is the reason Federer dominated at Wimbledon because he was much better than Pete Sampras? Or are the Heat as good as the 1970s Lakers side after their recent streak?

The answer is maybe. Realistically, winning streaks are due to a combination of factors – one of which is luck. By ignoring the input that chance has, we leave ourselves victim to over-rating the chances of teams on winning streaks.

In American sports, chance could be considered as playing a bigger part in proceedings, as the egalitarian structure ensures that there is a fairer division of talent between teams, and therefore less opportunity for a single team to dominate as in European soccer.

Aside from winning streaks, the same caution should be applied to using any form guides as an indicator. Should we really believe that a team with a five-game form of LLWWW will beat a team at WWLLL?

1. Don’t expect a new winner

Only one team in the last 15 years have won the Champions League – that was Chelsea in 2012, while Borussia Dortmund won back in 1996 – 1997. As it stands, five of the eight quarter-finalists in this year’s competition have tasted Champions League success before:

• Real Madrid
• Bayern Munich
• Barcelona
• Juventus
• Borussia Dortmund

Of the teams left, PSG haven’t reached the semi-finals since 1995, while a French team haven’t won the Champions League since its inception in 1993.

Malaga are appearing in their first ever Champions League and may lack the experience and quality to win it, while Galatasaray have only progressed to the semi-finals in 1989. A Turkish side is yet to win the competition and after a 3-0 defeat to Real Madrid in the first leg of their quarter-final, it looks very unlikely to happen this year.

2. Single nation finals are rare

There are three Spanish and two German sides left in the competition, meaning there is a possibility of an all-Spanish or all-German final. But only on three occasions has there been a final involving two teams from one country:

• 2000 – Real Madrid vs Valencia
• 2003 – AC Milan vs Juventus
• 2008 – Man Utd vs Chelsea

3. Successful managers bring success

Four of the last six managers to win the Champions League had already claimed the trophy once before. There are three previous winners left in this year’s competition:

• Jupp Heynckes (Bayern Munich) won the Champions League with Real Madrid in 1998
• Carlo Ancelotti (PSG) won the Champions League with AC Milan in 2003 & 2007
• Jose Mourinho (Real Madrid) won the Champions League with Porto in 2004 & Inter Milan in 2010

4. Fortune favours the consistent

Barcelona have reached the last five semi-finals and hold the joint-record for consecutive semi-final appearances, which they will break if they make the semis this year.

Bayern Munich have reached the final twice in the last three years, and in total have reached the final on nine different occasions, the 3rd most after Real Madrid with 12 and AC Milan with 11.

5. The reward of a top goalscorer

Having the top goal-scorer in a side has been enough for a team to reach at least the Champions League semi-finals since the 2005-06 season. And teams with the top goalscorer have won four Champions League titles in the last six years.

Lionel Messi has been the top goal-scorer for the last four Champions Leagues’, of which Barcelona have won two.

After scoring against Galatasaray in the first-leg Cristiano Ronaldo leads the goalscoring table with nine goals ahead of Messi and Galatasaray’s Burak Yılmaz who have scored eight apiece.

And from our previous trends article…

At the start of the competition we gave you some Champions League trends – of which some have already proved true:

• Retaining the Champions League is unlikely. The holders, Chelsea, were knocked out in the group stage, losing out to Juventus and Shakhtar Donetsk for a place in the last 16.

• Consecutive Champions League winners never come from the same country. With Chelsea falling at the group stage, and the holders taking the place of Tottenham Hotspur due to UEFA rules. Real Madrid and Bayern Munich knocked out the remaining English contingent of Manchester United and Arsenal respectively, in the last 16.

Click here for the latest Champions League odds.

Garcia Favourite to Defend Titles

Undefeated light welterweight champion Danny Garcia (25-0, 16 KOs)
is the overwhelming 1.174* favourite to beat Zab Judah and hold on to his light welterweight titles.

Garcia has a solid amateur background with over 120 fights and was crowned the 2006 US national amateur champion.

The Philadelphian has quick hands, good fundamentals and solid durability. Unlike most young fighters Garcia is comfortable fighting on the back foot, as he waits for an opportunity to unleash the big power shots.

The 24-year-old will look to remain disciplined against Judah. When he throws he has a tendency to punch wide of his body, which will leave himself open to counter punches.

Veteran Judah Aims to Roll Back the Years

This fight will likely be veteran Zab Judah’s last chance at winning another world title and the challenger is a big underdog of 5.800* to emerge victorious.

Judah will have a large following, as the fight will be held in his hometown of Brooklyn.

The 35-year-old veteran holds a record of 42-7, 29 KOs
and is a three-time light welterweight champion, with his first fight for a title coming over a decade ago.

Judah is a boxer who utilizes his fast hands, slick defensive skills and power. His weakness is his ability to lose focus, which has left him in trouble down the years.

However as his age has begun to catch up with him his reflexes and speed are beginning to slide, while he has always had a suspect chin.

The Brooklyn brawler can be an inconsistent performer; however being at the top of his game for over a decade is a statement of his quality.

Form Suggests Zab Is Struggling

The formbook highlights that Judah is declining, while Garcia is yet to reach his pinnacle.

The veteran’s last big win was a close points’ victory against Lucas Matthysse back in 2010 with many ringside thinking he lost despite claiming the vacant WBO welterweight title.

In honest the last time Judah won at elite level was when he stopped Cory Spinks way back in 2005.

Since that fight he has lost five times against world-class opposition, with the last three ending before the final bell.

In comparison Garcia is riding the crest of a wave after defying the odds against Amir Khan and knocking him out in the fourth round to claim both light welterweight titles, and then defending them by knocking out Erik Morales in the same round.

Key Fight Statistics

Garcia will enter the ring with a reputation as a big puncher with the ability to knockout his opponents.

Garcia’s knockout percentage is at an impressive 64%, while on average his bouts last 5.12 rounds, with 16 finishing before the final bell.

Judah in comparison has a knockout percentage of 56.8%, while his fights last on average 5.78 rounds, however the veteran has boxed in 167 (295) rounds more than the champion.

Judah has been labeled as a weak chin – he has been knocked out in three of his seven defeats – and will be susceptible to Garcia’s big bombs unless he boxes at distance.

Garcia (5’8) has a slight height advantage over Judah (5’7), however the challenger holds a 4cm reach advantage.

Also worth noting is that Garcia has never faced a southpaw fighter with the experience and ability of Judah.

In his two fights against recognised southpaw boxers Garcia won both, the first a points decision in 2008 against Julio Gamboa, and the second a knockout win against Oscar Leon in 2009.

Final Thoughts

Judah will no doubt aim to use his speed and slick style to make Garcia miss from distance, and look to frustrate the champion while Garcia will be looking to land a knockout punch and put pay to Judah’s title ambitions.

Will the fight follow the bookmakers script in favour of Garcia or will the champion be left without his titles and his undefeated record shattered?

Click here for the best Garcia vs. Judah betting odds.

The most popular metric for measuring goalkeeper success is “clean sheets”. You hear about it almost every week from football pundits, and while not letting the opposition score is important, it’s not the ultimate indicator of a goalkeeper’s ability.

Let’s compare No.1′s from two very different sides – Man City and QPR. Joe Hart (City) has an impressive 13 clean sheets – the most in the league – while Julio Cesar (QPR) has just 5. If this were the only metric we examined, it would be obvious the Hart was the stronger keeper.

A slightly more accurate statistic would be if we factored in the number of games each player has played – 29  vs. 21. Now Hart’s achievements seem even more impressive. The Laser Blue ends games with a clean slate 44.8% of the time, while Cesar manages it on just 23.8% of occasions.

This is only part of the picture, however, because in those 21 games, Cesar made 84 saves – far more than Hart’s 49. He’s also only conceded five more goals than the City star, despite playing for relegation-battlers QPR.

Religiously following clean sheet charts totally negate other, even more important statistics, and can cause people to overvalue the ability of goalkeepers – particularly at top clubs.

The table to the left shows that seven of the 10 keepers with the best clean sheet percentage come from the “big” Premier League clubs. Only John Ruddy (Norwich City), Asmir Begovic (Stoke City) and Simon Mignolet (Sunderland) stand out – potentially something to note when they’re on the field.

Better indicators? Shots per goal & saves per goal

Although less glamorous and more difficult to come by, researching the shots per goal conceded and saves per goal will give you a better picture of a goalkeeper’s ability.

Shots per goal conceded is a good indicator of both how well a goalkeeper can stop shots, as well as how good he is at organising his defence to minimise optimal scoring chances.

There is potential for biases for both good and bad teams in this indicator – good teams might be more adept at preventing clear-cut shots (increasing the number of shots per goal), while at the other end of the spectrum, worse teams might face more opportunistic strikers, hoping to exploit a worst team with speculative shots.

The latter reason might explain why the table to the left is dominated by teams from lower down the table – Swansea, WBA, Stoke, Southampton, Sunderland, QPR and West Ham. Even more interestingly, it shows that Paulo Gazzaniga, Southampton’s No. 2, actually has the seventh best performance in the league.

Saves Per Goal

The most objective indicator of goalkeeper performance could be saves per goal. This eliminates the two biases for shots per goal, as the No. 1 has to physically block the ball from going into his goal to be counted.

Interestingly, it’s actually Gerhard Tremmel of Swansea City that leads the rankings with 4.7 saves per goal. Two of the goalkeepers widely considered the best in the league – David De Gea and Petr Cech – came in second and third at 3.9 and 3.6 SPG each.

How can this help soccer betting?

Most bettors rely on subjective assessments of goalkeepers when determining their ability, which can be detrimental in betting. For example, it’s a natural assumption to assume that a team’s second-choice goalkeepers will be less sure of himself between the posts than the first-choice, and therefore when he’s playing the team should concede more.

In many cases, however, this hasn’t proven corrected. Looking at the saves per goal data, Southampton’s first choice keeper Artur Boruc is actually bottom of the table at just 1.4. The two other men who have represented Southampton between the sticks – Kelvin Davis and Paulo Gazzaniga – are rated at 1.5 and 2.7 saves per goal respectively.

Therefore rather than expecting a worse performance without Boruc, bettors might be more accurate in assuming no difference, or even a better performance. If we were just to examine the clean sheet information, however, Boruc has three compared to just one for Gazzaniga.

Shanghai International Circuit: overtaking opportunities

The Shanghai International Circuit hosted its first race in 2004 and boasts a twisted layout shaped like the Chinese character ‘shang’. The track is spread across 3.4 miles that consists of seven left-hand and seven right-hand corners, interrupted by two long straights.

Not only is the course well known for its change of acceleration and deceleration through a number of sweeping corners – making high demands on both driver and car – but also for its high-speed straights. These straights offer crucial overtaking opportunities, making the Chinese Grand Prix one of the most exciting on the calendar.

In total there were 1143 overtaking manoeuvres in the 2012 season with an average of 57.15 passes per Grand Prix. The 2012 Chinese Grand Prix topped the chart in a dry race, with no less than 90 successful overtaking manoeuvres.

Lewis Hamilton is the only two-time winner in China since the inaugural race in 2004, underlining the varied challenges of the Shanghai circuit, but also that the track favours an aggressive driver who is always looking to overtake.

Tyres & weather

With discussion still surrounding the make-up of the Pirelli tyres amid concerns of extensive tyre degradation, and with the possibility of a return to last year’s compounds, scrutiny will once more be placed on the tyre manufacturer.

Pirelli have already announced that the teams will use the soft and medium compounds, which they say guarantees the best compromise between grip and performance on this circuit.

Despite only raining once in qualifying, be sure to monitor the weather, as rain at the Chinese Grand Prix can be a common occurrence – Sunday has seen rain in 44% of races – so the intermediates and full wets could make an appearance.

However, unlike Malaysia, where the showers tend to be short and heavy, the rain in China is frequently light but long lasting, making it ideal for the intermediate tyre.

Qualification as a race performance indicator at Chinese Grand Prix

After proving that there was a good correlation between qualifying position and final race positions throughout the 2012 season (click to read here), we examined the past nine Chinese Grand Prix to give an indication as to how much influence Formula 1 bettors should place on the relevance of qualifying.

The data shows that there is a strong 0.59 correlation between qualifying and race position over all Chinese GPs.

Incredibly 78% of races at the Shanghai International Circuit had a correlation above 0.5, which emphasises that for three quarters of the data, qualifying provided a meaningful predictor of a drivers’ race performance.

The 2007 Grand Prix showed the weakest correlation of 0.38, which saw pole sitter Lewis Hamilton crash out in lap 30 and two other top 10 qualifiers retire after intermittent periods of rain soaked the Shanghai International track.

Despite raining for the majority of the race, the 2010 Chinese Grand Prix saw the strongest correlation of 0.78. Nine of the top ten qualifiers finished inside the points.

55% of drivers who qualified on pole at the Shanghai International Circuit over the past nine years have won the race, while the average finishing position is 3.7 – which may be surprising given the amount of overtaking opportunities around the track.

What the Malaysian GP taught us

Controversy surrounded the Malaysian Grand Prix as three-time world champion Sebastian Vettel defied team orders and overtook teammate Mark Webber – who had turned his engine down after being told Vettel wouldn’t challenge him – to win the Grand Prix.

Vettel claimed his second pole position of the season, while Webber qualified fifth fastest. Despite complaining about tyre degradation throughout the weekend, both Red Bull cars performed well on their tyres on Sunday.

The German is the 1.909* favourite with Pinnacle Sports to win a fourth consecutive drivers’ title, while Red Bull are offered at 1.621* to win the constructors.

Mercedes continued their good start to the season as Lewis Hamilton finished third ahead of teammate Nico Rosberg. However, team orders were evident as Rosberg was considerably quicker than Hamilton, but was directed not to overtake towards the end of the race.

Despite still lacking the pace to compete for race wins McLaren appeared to improve dramatically from the Australian Grand Prix, as Jenson Button qualified eighth ahead of Sergio Perez in 10th. Button was forced to retire, while Perez laboured home in ninth to secure his first points for McLaren.

Ferrari produced another solid qualifying performance with Felipe Massa (2nd) once again starting ahead of Fernando Alonso (3rd) on the grid. However, Alonso crashed out during lap two, while Massa could only manage a fifth placed finish.

In the hot dry conditions of practice the Lotus proved to be extremely quick, but during wet qualifying Kimi Räikkönen could only qualify in seventh, while Romain Grosjean only managed 11th. With that said, both drivers finished in the points and will fancy their chances in the heat of China if it stays dry.

Formula One bettors should combine the data from the relationship between qualifying and finishing position with the knowledge that the Chinese GP offers a number of overtaking opportunities.

It is also advantageous to keep up-to-date with the weather movements, while considering subjective factors such as the Shanghai International Circuits characteristics, the teams race strategy, tyre degradation and season form to ensure they are in a stronger position to make an informed decision about Formula One race winners.

Henderson favourite to win with Pinnacle Sports  

Ben Henderson is the 1.405* favourite with Pinnacle Sports to beat the Strikeforce champion Gilbert Melendez 3.200* when he makes his third defence of the UFC lightweight championship at UFC on Fox 7.

On the back of his destruction of Nate Diaz, Henderson wants to beat Melendez to prove that he is the best lightweight in the world. Melendez has been considered one of, if not the, best lightweight in the world for the last three years and will make his UFC debut on April 20^th.

Since arriving in the UFC Henderson has won six consecutive fights including the defence of his belt against both Diaz and Frankie Edgar. When he enters the cage at the HP Pavilion, the champion will hold an impressive 17-2-0 record.

The 29-year-old American is renowned for his exceptional wrestling skills, intelligent submissions and an aggressive ground and pound. His opponent Melendez has exceptional endurance and will look to utilize his own solid ground and pound.

The 30-year-old ‘El Nino’ also boasts a fantastic MMA record of 21-2-0, with his last defeat coming in 2008 – seven fights ago.

There is no difference in height between the two men (both 5’9″), however Melendez will hold a slight 1″ reach advantage. More notably, ‘El Nino’ will face a southpaw for only the fourth time in his career.

Does Melendez have a weakness against southpaw fighters?

Coming into the fight following a shoulder injury he suffered in September – forcing him to withdraw from his Strikeforce fight with Pat Healy – Melendez has only had experience fighting southpaws three times with a record reading 2-1.

As an orthodox fighter, the first time he fought a southpaw was against Mitsuhiro Ishida in 2007. The encounter resulted in ‘El Nino’ tasting defeat for the first time after the Japanese fighter won by unanimous decision.

Melendez gained his revenge against Ishida in 2009 with a third round knockout and then went on to beat Shinya Aoki in 2010 via a unanimous decision.

Although Melendez has a winning record against southpaw fighters, the others are not in the same league as Henderson, who will look to create awkward angles in both attack and defence.

Can Melendez strike it lucky?

Melendez will hope his speed will give him the striking advantage, however Henderson dealt with Edgar with ease – who is considered a quicker and more technical striker than Melendez.

The challenger will hope his one-inch reach advantage over Henderson will prove pivotal, however the champion nullified the six-inch reach deficit he faced last time out against Diaz.

Despite not being renowned for his striking, Henderson himself has the ability to mix speed with power.

‘El Nino’ has won 11 fights via KO, compared to just two for Henderson, while neither man has been stopped in the cage – a testament to their impressive strike defences. Henderson rebuffs 63% of his opponents attacks, while Melendez’s percentage is higher at 66.

Melendez lands an impressive 3.56 strikes per minute but connects with just 33%, while Henderson lands 2.93 strikes with an accuracy of 45%.

Henderson will look to dominate the ground battle

Both fighters are accomplished wrestlers and masters of ground and pound. Winning this battle could determine the outcome of the fight.

Melendez – 44% takedown accuracy – uses his powerful takedowns as the foundation for his game, while Henderson – 51% takedown accuracy – is possibly the most explosive wrestler in UFC. When the two men face-off in the cage it will be noticeable that Henderson is the bigger of the two men, while his experience against top opposition cannot be rivalled by his opponent.

Both men have excellent takedown defence. Henderson avoids 67% of his opponent’s attacks, while Melendez repels 77% of attacks – with this said Melendez has not fought a wrestler in the same caliber as Henderson.

In terms of submissions, eight of Henderson’s has 18 career wins have come via a tap-out, compared to Melendez who has made his opponent slap the mat only once in 23 fights. The statistics don’t lie as Henderson attempts 1.02 submissions per 15 minutes, compared to just 0.3 by Melendez. But while the latter has never tapped out – Henderson did early in his career against Rocky Johnson.

Mental & physical conditioning could prove key

The mental and physical conditioning of both fighters could prove key in determining who wins this bout.

It’s highly probable that the fight will last five rounds as Henderson’s last seven fights have been decided by the judges, while four of Melendez’s last five reached the final bell.

Melendez is known to have a fantastic engine, while Henderson himself can fight at a good pace for the championship rounds. However, Henderson could hold the mental advantage.

The UFC lightweight champion has fantastic mental strength and an undeniable belief in his own ability. His advantage however is the fact his opponent has never fought in the razzmatazz of a UFC main event – Melendez may be one of the best fighters in the world, but surely everyone needs to acclimatise to the UFC.

Click here for the best Henderson vs. Melendez UFC on Fox 7 odds.

If you missed our introduction to the basic bet types in basketball betting – including handicaps – click here to read about them.

Half & Quarter betting

Half or quarter betting allows the bettor to bet on the result after a quarter or half, instead of over the full 80 minutes. Bets can be placed on any of the four periods or two halves. Games will show odds for moneylines, handicaps and totals.

It is often the case in basketball that the team that wins at the final whistle does not win each quarter/half, so betting on halves or quarters gives the bettor the opportunity to use their knowledge of variations in team performances – teams that start or finish strongly for example – to make a profit.

Accumulator (Parlay) basketball betting

This bet is made up of a combination of two or more picks on one or more games. The bettor must correctly predict all selections to win. The more games they select, the higher the odds and the bigger the potential win if all selections are correct. For example a three game accumulator will look like this:

Heat to win 1.198

LA Lakers to win 1.952

Phoenix Suns to win 6.730

A £10 bet would return £157.47 (including stake), however if any of the teams lost the bettor would win nothing.

Accumulators are popular because they offer big returns for a smaller outlay – but the potential for winning decreases with each additional team.

Teaser Basketball betting

A teaser is similar to an accumulator but the odds are fixed per Teaser and the bettor has the benefit of adjusting the point handicap. Points can be added to the underdog or subtracted from the favourite depending on what outcome the bettor feels is most likely.

All of the teams selected must win in order for a bettor to win their bet. A single loss on any one game makes the entire bet a losing one.

Basketball teaser point spreads can be moved 4, 4.5, or 5 points at Pinnacle Sports, and the teasers must be between two or six teams.

Teasers continually cause debate amongst bettors, with some believing they are pointless bets, while others believe they are worthwhile, as more games tend to fall close to the point handicap. Whatever the truth, there are definitely quite a few myths that surround teasers – click here to learn more.

Futures basketball betting

Betting on basketball futures allows players to bet on a team’s chances of winning a championship or conference at the start of a season or playoffs. This can offer bettors value if they bet before the season starts, as the odds will change throughout the season, however the odds the punter originally bet with remain the same.

Proposition basketball betting

Proposition – or props – are bets that focus outside of the regular game variables like outcome, score or margin of score. They can extend to the weird and wonderful and for that reason tend to be considered some of the most successful for a player to win. Propositions are commonly offered on individual players or game scenarios. A typical prop might look like this:

Will LeBron James score 65 points in any game this season?

Yes 4.500

No 1.200

While odds for moneylines and handicaps are usually formed from the aggregated opinion from many bookmakers, bets on props are usually the bettor’s opinion versus just one bookmaker.  The key here is to know more than that bookmaker.

Understanding the more advanced basketball bet type is essential so the bettor can spot where the value lies for a potential bet, this therefore giving them the best opportunity to make as much profit as possible for basketball betting.

The ‘Mauler’ favourite to win on home soil

Alexander ‘The Mauler’ Gustafsson 1.145* has his sights firmly set on a light heavyweight title bout against Jon Jones, however the Swede must first fight arguably his most dangerous opponent – former Strikeforce light heavyweight champion Gegard Mousasi 3.150*.

The Swedish superstar returns home to fight in Stockholm at UFC on Fuel TV 9 for the first time in 12 months, while Mousasi will make his much-anticipated UFC debut.

The Mauler has an impressive MMA record with 15 wins and just one defeat – a submission against Phil Davis – while his opponent Mousasi (33-3-2) will enter the cage having lost just one fight in his last 22 outings.

The defeat against Davis in 2010 triggered a transformation for the 26-year-old into a light heavyweight contender – he improved his training, and joined Davis at Alliance MMA to improve his overall skillset.

The move proved successful with Gustafsson claiming six straight victories, including convincing decision wins over Thiago Silva and Mauricio Rua.

28-year-old Iranian Mousasi is exceptionally talented and has been considered a dark horse in Strikeforce for a while. With a sudden change in attitude towards training and fight preparation, he could be on the verge of turning his potential into reality.

Striking battle could prove decisive

Gustafsson has utilized his 76.5-inch reach to good affect in the past, however despite a four inch height disadvantage, Mousasi can match his range (76-inch reach) and holds a slight advantage in terms of striking power and technique.

Mousasi, who once flirted with the idea of boxing in the Olympics, has never been outstruck in 38 fights and lands an average 3.66 strikes per minute with a 51% success rate. Gustafsson lands an average of 3.98 strikes per minute with an accuracy of 36%.

Mousasi has a solid 70% striking defence compared to just 56% of Gustafsson. Both fighters operate an orthodox stance, however Gustafsson is a dangerous counter striker, while Mousasi punches very hard.

The ‘Mauler’ has nine KO wins, compared to Mousasi who has dropped 18 fighters. Significantly, neither man has succumbed to a knockout defeat.

If the fight hits the mat, who holds the advantage?

Despite both men favouring to fight on their feet, both are well rounded on the mat. Mousasi is an experienced judo fighter, and despite not possessing wrestling skills in the same caliber as Jones, he can pull off submissions from nothing.

With 11 victories via submission the Iranian averages 1.95 takedowns (55% accuracy) per 15 minutes, with an average of 1.76 submission attempts every 15 minutes.

Gustafsson earned his purple belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu following his loss to Phil Davis. His takedown defence (84%) has improved significantly, which was evident against dangerous Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belts Thiago Silva and Mauricio Rua – surrendered just one takedown in both fights.

The Swede has won three fights via submission and averages 2.56 takedowns per 15 minutes, with an accuracy of just 50%. Mousasi only rebuffs 50% of his opponents takedown attempts, so Gustafsson may attempt to add a third submission defeat on Mousasi.

A change in training could be vital for Mousasi

Following his draw with Keith Jardine, Mousasi decided to drastically alter his training regime. Known for being laid back and unprofessional in his approach to fight preparation he has hired a number of coaches to improve.

After making these drastic changes The Dreamcatcher made short work of former Olympian Hiroshi Izumi before beating both St. Preux and Mike Kyle in his final two bouts with Strikeforce.

Mousasi has recorded four decision wins and one loss, while the younger Gustafsson has three victories via decision – including his last two fights.

Click here for the best Gustafsson vs. Mousasi UFC on Fuel TV 9 betting odds

How do the top 5 tennis players shape up vs. lower ranked opposition?

In the last 52 weeks, all five of the top five tennis players have increased their win percentages against unseeded opposition. Djokovic is currently leading the standings, having lost just once in 52 outings against non-seeded competitors. At a massive 98%, his current win percentage is seven points higher than his career-average of 91%.

Roger Federer is also almost unstoppable, with 50 wins to three defeats (a 94% win percentage, up from 93%), while Andy Murray is up 1% to 88% and David Ferrer – also at 88% – is up 7%.

The average win percentage over the last 52 weeks for this group was 92%.  This means that – on average – we can expect to see one of the top five players lose to an unseeded rival 8% of the time, or once every 12.3 matches. The “career average” win rate for these players (when they are ranked in the top five) against opposition ranked 10+ was 89% – or a defeat once every nine outings.

What about Nadal?

Before his win at Indian Wells, how would you rate Rafael Nadal against players ranked 11+ in the last year? Most people would say he’s been making a few mistakes – after all, we can all remember the Spaniard’s spectacular exit from Wimbledon in 2012 at the hands of the 100-ranked Lukas Rosol. And to a lesser extent, people are also aware of his defeat to Horacio Zeballos (rank 73) in February 2013.

These high-profile defeats – one in the second round of Wimbledon, the other on his return from injury – are easy to remember and gained a lot of media coverage concerned with whether the Spaniard had lost his killer instinct.

Statistically, however, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

Nadal’s killer instinct

Nadal – despite his drop to fifth in the rankings – is actually more adept at finishing off players outside the top ten in the last year than he usually is. In the last 52 weeks, when ranked at #5 or better, he’s finished-off opposition 51 times, and lost just four. That gives the left-hander a 93% win rate – above his career average of 91%.

The reason that we tend to think that Nadal has lost his killer instinct is not because of the objective truth, but more to do with a gut instinct called the “availability bias”. This is a psychological effect where humans attach greater significance to events that leave the strongest impression – an early exit from a Grand Slam, for example. You can read more about the dangers of heuristics here.

The Nadal example – and his subsequent success at Indian Wells – demonstrates how easy it is to underestimate a player’s abilities following a high-profile defeat (or poor run of form), and why it helps to be as objective as possible in analysing players.

Sepang Circuit: tough on both man and machine

Since holding its inaugural Grand Prix in 1999, the Sepang International Circuit is one of the toughest circuits in Formula One. A combination of long high-speed straights, and tight twisting corners ensure the track is complicated, but perfect for overtaking.

Car set-up is key as the Sepang Circuit presents a difficult balancing act for the teams to master – with a variety of corners mixed with long straights it’s vital to find a balance between adding downforce and facilitating top-end speed.

The Sepang Circuit has a number of differences from Melbourne, which certify why it’s more difficult for both man and machine. A combination of extremely high track temperatures, a rough track surface and a volatile climate, ensure both a driver’s skill and the cars durability are pushed to the limit.

Unpredictable weather can play a part

The weather at the Malaysian Grand Prix is renowned for being extremely unpredictable – expect blisteringly hot sunshine one minute and a tropical thunderstorm the next.

The forecast earlier in the week showed that qualifying would be dry, although Sunday could see a number of thunderstorms. How drivers and teams react to the ever changing conditions could be key between success and failure. With this said, the climate around the circuit is ever changing, so it is advisable to monitor the situation.

Tyre degradation could prove a problem

The Sepang Circuit has one of the most abrasive surfaces the cars will compete on all year, which is part of the reason why the two hardest Pirelli compounds will be used.

With the track being built on swampland, it has an uneven surface, which coupled with the track temperature and twisty bends increases tyre degradation. The high lateral demand on the tyres – second only to Barcelona – leads to heat build-up within the tyre.

Although grip levels are high in Malaysia, the frequent rain has the effect of washing any rubber that has been laid down from the track overnight, meaning that there is often a ‘green’ surface at the start of each session producing another test for the drivers.

Qualification as a race performance indicator at Malaysian Grand Prix

After proving that there was a good correlation between qualifying position and final race positions throughout the 2012 season (click to read here), we examined the past 10 Malaysian Grand Prix to give an indication as to how much weight Formula 1 bettors should place on the relevance of qualifying.

The data shows that there is a 0.48 correlation between qualifying and race position over the last 10 Malaysian GPs, however when eradicating the 2006 data –that showed a correlation of 0.08 – the correlation rises to a solid 0.53.

60% of races at the Malaysian Grand Prix had a correlation above 0.5, which highlights that for more than half of the data, qualifying provided a meaningful predictor of a drivers’ race performance.

The 2006 Grand Prix proved controversial as five drivers expected to be challenging for the points were forced to drop ten places because of changing an engine before the race – therefore skewing the data. On race day, the drivers’ who didn’t change their engine suffered serious mechanical difficulties, with only 14 drivers finishing the race from a field of 22.

The strongest correlation was 0.82, which was recorded at the 2011 Malaysian Grand Prix. Here the weather was perfect for Formula One racing and as such eight of the top ten qualifiers, finished inside the points on Sunday which highlights the importance of researching the weather forecast.

50% of drivers who qualified on pole at the Sepang Circuit over the past ten years have won the race, while the average finishing position is 3.7.

What we learnt from Australia 

Kimi Raikkonen won the first Grand Prix of the year and proved that Lotus have kept their good tyre durability while improving their race pace, which means they are well placed to make a serious championship charge.

Despite claiming a one-two in qualifying Red Bull were unable to convert their pace into a victory – Sebastian Vettel third and Mark Webber sixth – but there is little doubt that the car is the quickest after such a dominant qualifying session.

Mercedes made a solid start to the season with Lewis Hamilton debuting in the Silver Arrow claiming third in qualifying before finishing fifth. A better performance is expected from the team when track temperatures rise.
McLaren had a disastrous start to the season and are struggling to compete in the midfield let alone at the front. After designing a new car instead of tweaking last year’s model – like the majority of the teams – they found themselves at times two-seconds off the pace. Jenson Button finished ninth after qualifying 10^th, while Sergio Perez finished 11^th after starting 15^th on the grid.

Formula One bettors should couple the data from the relationship between qualifying and finishing position while keeping a very close eye on the weather alongside subjective factors such as track characteristics, race strategy, tyre degradation, racing incidents and season form, to ensure they are in a stronger position to make an informed decision about Formula One race winners.

Click here for the latest Malaysian Grand Prix Odds.

The Halo Effect

Judging the following men by their characteristics, who do you prefer – Alan or Ben?

For the majority of people, these descriptions leave a more favourable impression of Alan than of Ben. This is strange given that their listed characteristics are identical and just presented in reverse.

Instead of acknowledging that the only difference is in the order that the data is received, the lazy side of our mind (often referred to as System 1) seeks a consistency in evaluation in order to quickly build a coherent narrative.

The initial positive trait – Alan is intelligent – inclines us to interpret the latter traits to support this view and vice-versa with envious Ben. This is known as the Halo Effect.

What has this got to do with betting? Change the example from fictitious men to two soccer teams or tennis players, and the character descriptions to results or performances. It is easy to see how betting judgements are biased by the order in which information is acquired, and the significance of particular performances.

This kind of bias isn’t isolated, people are also susceptible to the Availability Heuristic that leads us to place greater disproportional significance to events/ideas that are easiest to recall. Availability is largely linked to the strength of our emotional response to events, which is greater when they make a more lasting impression e.g. high-scoring games, five-set classics, etc.

So with knowledge of the Halo Effect and Availability Heuristic, let’s look at some examples within betting where they apply:

Brazilian Soccer Team

The reverence with which Brazil’s national soccer team is held sets them aside from all other national teams, and in the minds of the betting public, out of proportion to a truly objective appraisal. It is a fact that the Seleção have won the World Cup more often than any other nation – but their five victories came in two distinct periods 1958-70 and 1994-2002, while at the last two tournaments they fell at the quarter-finals, and the burden of expectation will be huge in 2014.

Their periods of success starting with the golden age of Pele, Carlos Alberto, Rivelino, etc. have created a ‘Halo’ that skews the perception of all Brazilian teams, which availability bias confirms with the easy recollection of frequently aired wonder-goals, especially from the 1970 tournament in Mexico.

Younger generations may be less familiar with events from over 40 years ago but the media perpetuates the idea (confirmation bias) by hammering home the idea that all Brazilian players are super-skilled. This consistency of evaluation creates a coherent narrative. “Brazil has produced many of the world’s most skilful players – therefore all Brazilian players are skilful”.

At the risk of upsetting half of Merseyside, Liverpool FC are another team that the Halo Effect applies to. Having won eleven League titles from 1973-90, it can be hard to disassociate subsequent Anfield teams with that history. This can lead to bettors to over-value contemporary Liverpool sides, who share nothing but a history with those great teams.

The Halo Effect also explains why a disproportionate amount of credit is given to famous ex-soccer players who move into management. There is no statistical evidence that being a good player makes you a good manager. Mark Hughes was a great player at Manchester United and Chelsea, but expectations of him as a manager have subsequently been set at the same level of achievement. The Halo created by playing exploits leads many clubs, fans and bettors to expect more than is realistic from those individuals when they are picking the team. This subject has gained exposure through the book Moneyball, and film of the same name.

Reverse Halo

The Halo Effect can also work in reverse. If the first impression of your holiday hotel is a broken sign, this can set a negative context biasing all subsequent judgements about your stay. From a betting perspective, a bad performance disproportionally biases future assessments.

After relinquishing a four-shot lead going into the final round of the 2011 US Masters, Rory McIlroy was labelled a choker and worse by newspaper headlines. Prior to the tournament he was one of the sport’s rising stars, but one dramatic round of 80 – easily recalled given the visible turmoil of the young golfer (thanks to the Availability Heuristic) – changed all that in many bettors’ eyes. Any bettor able to take a more rounded judgement would have benefited two months later when he won the US Open by eight shots, then in 2012 he won his second major, the US PGA Championship

Had these events happened in reverse – winning two majors then collapsing in the final round of the Masters – assessments of his future performances would have been more forgiving. This is particularly pertinent with McIlroy’s walking off the course halfway through round two of the Honda Classic (on Mar 1^st) with a 7-over par score and in a ‘bad state mentally’. The ‘Halo’ that major success has given will temper bettors’ opinions of McIlroy’s chances of future success.

Lessons to Learn

Our intuitive mind is valuable and very powerful, and can often save our lives by perceiving danger. However, it has a real weakness when it comes to statistical assessment. The trick is to force our effortful mind (System 2) into action.

Before making a betting choice, it is important to:

• Deliberately look for three counter arguments to your face value assessment

• Employ as much objective data with as big a sample size as possible

• Ignore mainstream media which often seeds simplistic narratives

Bettors who read about interesting aspects of psychology like the Halo Effect may be inspired to the point of sharing their new knowledge, but this doesn’t mean that they can modify there own propensity to place ‘Halos’ on sportsmen or teams. The test is not whether you have learned a new fact but whether your understanding of situations you encounter has evolved.

‘Pretty Boy’ favourite to remain undefeated

Floyd ‘Pretty Boy’ Mayweather is the overwhelming 1.111* favourite at Pinnacle Sports to remain undefeated and ensure Robert Guerrero 7.010* is his 43rd victim when the two meet at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada for the WBC welterweight title on May 4th.

Tensions appear high surrounding this fight after the two fighters traded insults, while their fathers have also engaged in a heated exchange.

Despite being renowned for trash talking, Mayweather (43-0, 26KOs) appeared more agitated than in previous ‘war of words’ as he prepares to fight the latest fighter to threaten his unblemished 43-fight record.

The five-division world champion is rated as the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world on numerous ranking sites and despite turning 35, still appears to have the same determination now as he did when he made his professional debut in 1996.

Guerrero, in comparison, is six-years younger than his opponent and similarly boasts an impressive record of 31-1-1, 18 KOs.

The Ghost has moved up in weight throughout his career and is a former IBF Super Featherweight world champion, a former interim WBA and WBO lightweight champion and a former two-time IBF featherweight champion.

Could Mayweather be ring rusty?

Bettors may want to ask themselves the question: how prepared Floyd Mayweather is following a one-year hiatus?

The pound-for-pound king hasn’t fought since May last year when he scored a unanimous decision win over Miguel Cotto in a hard-fought 12-round bout.

Despite beating Cotto, Mayweather struggled to deal with Puerto Rican and was caught with too many punches; evidence perhaps, that age is catching up with the ‘pretty boy’ who appeared more stationary than any time in his career.

Guerrero, on the other hand, is coming off an impressive unanimous decision win over Andre Berto for the interim WBC welterweight title and is full of confidence.

Before the Berto fight, Guerrero moved up to welterweight from lightweight and won a points decision against the hard but relatively unknown Selcuk Aydin. However, it was the manner in which he manhandled Berto for 12 rounds which has earned him the chance to fight Mayweather.

Guerrero is an aggressive forward fighter and will be looking to constantly put pressure on Mayweather like Cotto did. Having shown his quality against Berto and following Mayweather’s sluggish performance against Cotto, there is a muted suggestion that a massive upset could be on the cards.

The fight could go the distance

Interestingly three of Floyd’s last five fights have gone the distance, while Guerrero’s last five bouts have all gone to the judge’s scorecards.  This is unsurprising when looking at both fighters average knockout percentage.

Mayweather is more experienced and enters the ring with 315 rounds under his belt and a KO% of 60.47, while Guerrero has fought 213 rounds with a KO% of 51.43.

Does Mayweather have a flaw against southpaw fighters?

Ever since Mayweather was accused of ‘ducking’ a fight with Manny Pacquiao, there has been a stigma surrounding his ability to fight against southpaws.

Mayweather has fought seven southpaw pugilists in the past and Guerrero will be his eighth, however with a 100% record against southpaw fighters, let’s take a look at the stats against the three most notable in DeMarcus Corley, Sharmba Mitchell and Zab Judah.

Against Corley, Mayweather landed 47% of his punches per round, while the total punch stats showed the Pretty Boy landed nearly double Corley’s punches (283-150). He comfortably won the fight unanimously on the judge’s scorecards after dropping Corley in both the 8th & 10th round.

Mayweather’s performance was even better against Mitchell who he knocked out with a body shot in the sixth round after already putting him down in round three. The punch stats showed Mayweather landed 43% of his shots, but more impressive was his defence, which was highlighted by Mitchell landing just 11% of his total punches – an average of five per round.

The fight with Judah started badly as Mayweather lost the first two rounds after being tagged a number of times in the first six minutes. After the opening two rounds though, Mayweather outclassed his opponent as he landed a total of 205 punches (46%) compared to just 89 (18%) for Judah. The fight went the distance with Mayweather claiming a unanimous points victory.

The reason behind the assumption is that Floyd pins his chin against his left shoulder and often stands with his front turned to his right – this works well against an orthodox fighter as the power punches come from his right towards his left shoulder, which guards his chin.

The potential problem comes when the power punch comes from his left. Despite mastering the art of rolling to his right and then countering, his ageing years could make him more vulnerable.

It doesn’t need saying that Mayweather can adapt by adjusting his stance, but it is hard to reverse habits that have been engrained into your style for your entire boxing career, especially when you have been dragged into a brawl by a younger fighter.

Click here to see the best Mayweather vs. Guerrero Betting odds

The idea that a soccer player can come off the bench and change a game is widely known. But which players can provide more of an impact than reflected in live odds? And what other vital changes do subs bring that you need to notice for live betting?

In fact, studies have shown that in-game fatigue causes a reduction in sprint distance, less involvement in decisive actions, fewer sprints in a match, longer recovery time after sprints, and worse technical and tactical performance.

What has been less investigated is the difference between how starting players and substitutes compare.

For example, one research project suggested that the number of sprints performed by players brought on as subs, is actually higher than those who played all 90 minutes. This theory adds weight to just how impactful a substitute can be, and their significance to match outcomes.

Why are substitutions made?

The first step in understanding how a substitution will affect live betting is to consider the thought process behind it. Is the manager trying to grab another goal? Or is he strengthening his defence? Maybe he’s been forced into using a substitute due to injury, or he needs to reshuffle his side after a red card? How does the perceived intention relate to the odds for the game?

You can gain an advantage by calculating a manager’s intentions before the bookmakers. For example, substitutions are not always explicitly clear in their intention. They are not all as obvious as to take off a defender and add a striker to increase attacking intention.

Decisions can be subtler. Removing an attacker isn’t necessarily a negative intention; it could allow midfield players to push into deeper roles or to allow a fullback to play as a wingback.

Other examples of this include introducing a defensive midfielder to free up the other players to play higher up the field, or to put a pacey fullback to act as a winger. There have been cases where managers have brought on a tall centreback to play upfront to cause chaos in the air for direct balls. By understanding players’ strengths in different areas of the pitch, bettors can anticipate the motives behind substitutions and bet accordingly.

The impact substitutions can cause to formations can also be more important than the change of personnel. A great example of this was Chelsea vs. Monaco in the 2004 Champions League semi-final. The game was tied at 1-1 with Chelsea holding a one man advantage when Claudio Ranieri made two fatal substitutions in an attempt to win the game.

Prolific forward Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink came on for right-back Mario Melchiot, followed seven minutes later by centreback Robert Huth, who replaced midfielder Scott Parker. The resulting formation was a mess – Chelsea were fielding three natural centrebacks, a leftback, three central midfielders and three strikers, with one of the midfielders and one of the forwards playing on each flank.

Anyone watching could see a disjointed nature to Chelsea’s play as the players struggled to adjust to playing in unnatural positions. The result of the substitutions was three-fold – an insurmountable 3-1 advantage to Monaco, the final nail in Ranieri’s coffin, and a quiet profit for anyone who understood that Ranieri’s tinkering’s were a bridge too far.

Sami Khedira – a standout sub?

Of course, not all substitutes are created equal. Therefore it’s vital to calculate which players positively impact games, which have less of an effect, and how this affects live betting. Take a player like German international Sami Khedira. How would you consider his significance as a substitute?

On January 27th Real Madrid were strong favourites at home to Getafe but drawing 0-0 at half-time. Jose Mourinho replaced Raúl Albiol with Khedira – the game ended 4-0 to the Galacticos.

How important was Khedira’s introduction? How often do such changes happen and have a significant impact on a game, but go unnoticed, and are therefore not accurately reflected in the in-running odds?

One idea would be to create your own list of “super subs”, which is easy to do on a basic level. Using Khedira as an example, a good way to monitor his impact is to see how his team performs before and after his introduction to a game.

From 2011 onwards, Khedira has been used as a sub 12 times for Madrid, playing a total of 301 minutes. After coming on Los Blancos scored 17 goals and conceded just two. Prior to his introduction, Madrid had managed 27 goals and conceded 17 in 779. This suggests that Khedira not only improved Madrid’s defence, but also moved their average minutes per goal from 28.9 to 17.7 – not bad for someone widely considered as a defensive midfielder.

Khedira has also scored just once in those 12 matches, meaning his performances would have been easy to overlook and therefore less likely to be reflected in the live odds. Just how many Khedira type players are there producing potential value in live markets when joining or leaving games?

Marking “super subs” for live betting

Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi or Gareth Bale would all be great to have on the bench if a manager wanted to win a game, but if you’re hoping they will change the odds in your favour, you’re mistaken.

A general rule is that if the player entering the pitch is a superstar – or a TV pundit has branded him a “super sub” – bookmakers will have already taken his potential impact into consideration. Next time one of the above players is named on the bench (and has no fitness issues), check out the live betting to see how the odds shift when they come on.

The Halo Effect describes the way in which people can gain a skewed opinion by relying on their intuitive judgements. In terms of substitutes this would manifest in over-valuing players that have scored dramatic or memorable goals as subs (e.g. Adam Le Fondre) but for whom overall data suggests their contributions are not significant (or sample size is too small to accurately evaluate).

Of course, all substitutes hinge on another part of everyday football – the red card. A sending off has a dramatic impact on a game’s outcome – but what about for live soccer betting? This will be discussed in next month’s edition of The Pulse.

Pinnacle Sports crunched the numbers from the 2012 Formula One season and the last 10 Australian Grand Prix to see if F1 qualifying positions were a key indicator for the outcome of the race ahead.

The relationship between qualifying & finishing position

Despite some of the most exciting races of the season throwing the finishing order into disarray, there was a good correlation between qualifying and final race positions in the 20 races of the 2012 Formula One season.

The correlation was 0.54, which indicates a strong link between a driver’s qualifying position and final race position. A correlation of “1″ would indicate that every driver qualified and finished in the same position, while “0″ indicates that there was no correlation at all.

Sixty percent of 2012′s races had a correlation above 0.5, which highlights that for more than half the season, qualifying provided a meaningful predictor of a drivers’ race performance.

Rule changes and race results

In 2010 the FIA – Formula One’s governing body – looked into ‘leveling the playing field’ and making races more exciting for the fans.

The FIA announced the return of Pirelli as the tyre supplier in 2011 alongside a number of rules and regulation changes that have made predicting a race winner less certain.

The effect on racing brought about from the change in approach by the FIA is noticeable when the 2012 and 2009 seasons are compared. In 2009, 71% of races, showed a good correlation between qualifying and final race position, 11% higher than in 2012.

The average correlation for the 2009 season was also higher at 0.56 – 0.02 more than in 2012. However, when removing the 2009 Brazilian Grand Prix – a big outlier with a negative correlation of -0.007 – the average correlation for the 16 races jumps by 0.05 to 0.61, an even stronger correlation.

The 2009 Brazilian Grand Prix relationship between qualifying and finishing position was skewed because of a number of incidents throughout qualifying and the race. Qualifying was dominated by a tropical storm, which saw four championship contenders start from the back of the grid, while a crash during the first lap on Sunday resulted in three of the top ten retiring.

The unpredictable nature of Formula One

With 20 races situated across five continents, it is understandable to see why each circuit could have quite different individual characteristics. Each race gives the drivers, constructors and bettors new challenges and scenarios to take into consideration as both racetrack characteristics and weather conditions can dramatically alter the outcome.

A comparison of the 2012 Hungarian and 2012 Belgian Grand Prix shows how different the relationship between qualifying and final race position can be. The track at the Hungaroring is notoriously difficult for drivers to overtake on, while the weather is almost always dry. As such, last season’s results produced a near perfect correlation of 0.94 between qualifying and final race position.

In contrast, after a five-week mid-season break, the Formula One travelling circus arrived at the Spa-Francorchamps for the Belgian Grand Prix. The notoriously unpredictable weather, and a number of difficult corners, make this track one of the biggest challenges to the drivers’ skill.

The relationship between qualifying and final race position in 2012 showed a near zero correlation (0.10). The result was nothing to do with weather, however – it was a huge first lap crash that eliminated five of the top ten on the grid.

A look ahead to the 2013 Australian Grand Prix

The paddock arrives at Albert Park on March 16^th for the first Grand Prix of 2013. The teams and drivers line up with a new car after an inconclusive winter testing period that was interrupted by inclement weather, leaving everyone unsure as to how they compare against their rivals.

The Melbourne street circuit puts a major strain on tyres due to constant changes between turns and straights, coupled alongside the rough street tarmac. This will be a concern to the drivers who expressed their worries about the level of degradation on the new Pirelli tyres during testing at the Circuit de Catalunya.

With a number of changes to team line-ups, the first Grand Prix of the year typically requires a conservative set up and strategy with minimal risks, as drivers become accustomed to their new cars, tyres and set-up.

Examining the past ten Australian Grand Prix gives us some indication as to how much weight Formula 1 bettors should place in the relevance of qualifying. There’s a correlation of 0.45 between qualifying and race position over the last 10 Australian GPs.

The lowest relationship between where a driver qualifies and their final race position was 0.08 in 2003, while the strongest association was 0.67 in 2004.

Interestingly, 60% of drivers who qualified first at Albert Park over the past ten years have won the race, while the average finishing position is 4^th, which is where Lewis Hamilton finished in 2012.

Proving that there is a relationship between qualifying and finishing position is not, on its own, enough to generate an edge. Correlations must be established for each track, over a big enough sample to iron-out freak crashes, overlaid with more subjective factors such as weather, track characteristics, race strategy, tyre degradation and racing incidents. You can then be in a stronger position to make an informed decision about Formula One race winners.

Click here for the best 2013 Formula One betting odds.

Many bettors don’t measure the value of a bet by its Expected Value (EV), but instead consider what they feel about the potential returns. For example, try rating the importance of the following increases in your chance to win $1million:

Though all of the options represent the same quantitative change (a 5% improvement) they produce different qualitative impressions – in other words, each option generates a different emotional reaction.

Option (a) moves you from no chance of winning the $1million to having a chance. And though it is a small one – with a probability of 0.05 – the move into the realms of possibility is a crucial trigger to positive emotion. This feeling is known as the Possibility Effect, which generally leads gamblers to overweight long shots, and is a driving force behind lottery participation which, for a small outlay, offers the a chance of a huge win.

Options (b) and (c) tend to have less dramatic impressions. Even though with (b) your chance of winning actually doubles, it still doesn’t provide a qualitative impact – it doesn’t push the same mental buttons.

With option (d) the outcome moves to certainty (100%), producing an inverse of the Possibility Effect. This is known as the Certainty Effect, which means that, in the absence of EV calculations, outcomes close to certainty are generally underweighted in relation to their probability.

Vividness – thinking the ball into the net

Despite the benefits of weighting the probabilities, bettors still tend to choose to bet on team A over team B because they believe it is a more likely occurrence, not from a calculation of superior value.

Further to this, studies have shown that the objective use of probability in assessing outcomes declines where subject matter evokes a vivid emotional representation of an outcome, or the phrasing of a bet demands specific focus.

In relation to our lottery example, who hasn’t had the following idle discussion – “what would you do if you won the lottery?” This is an example of generating a vivid fantasy of an unlikely outcome. This inevitably leads you to overweight the probability of scooping the jackpot.

For the same reason, betting on your favourite team or player is a bad idea as your emotional attachment generates more vivid projections of the desired outcome – thinking the ball into the net – overweighting the probability.

Phraseology – the importance of wording

When a bet is worded in clear terms, it’s easier to make an Expected Value calculation – estimated or explicitly worked out – so weighting will be close to or match probability. Subtle variations in the way bets are phrased can however make a difference to the interpretation.

For example, outright markets can be phrased as either, ‘Player A vs. the field’, or as a long list of all participants including Player A (e.g. Player A: 3.201, Player B: 9.454, Player C: 11.232, etc.).

The first option offers a simplistic presentation of the task for Player A, which causes a cognitive overweighting of his probability of success. The second option – despite being exactly the same probability – seems a more daunting prospect, simply because the opponents that Player A must overcome are listed. This leads to an underweighted assessment.

Focus is as important as emotion

Similarly, focus is critically important to misjudging probability. It is common to see the following bets:

“Will Team A score?” Odds Yes/Odds No

“Will Team B score?” Odds Yes/Odds No

Bettors judgements are overweighted when focused on each option in isolation as opposed to a combination of both questions:

“Will both Team A & Team B score” Odds Yes/Odds No

One study in 1999 by Craig Fox and the late psychologist Amos Tversky clearly demonstrates this. They asked a group of US basketball fans to assess the individual chances of the eight quarter-finalists in the NBA Playoffs.

As the focus was solely upon assessing the chances of just one team at a time, and because as NBA fans they generated vivid impressions of each team, the aggregated probability for the outcomes was significantly overweighted at 240% for the eight teams. Of course, it should have been 100%.

When asked to just assess the chances of a winner from the Eastern Conference or the Western Conference probabilities were very close to 100%. This was because the two options generated less emotional response and were equally specific.

Rare events & underweighting – the hole in one gang

An infamous betting coup by two punters in 1991, who became known as the Hole In One Gang, neatly illustrates how the inability to visualize a rare event, and how judgement without recourse to proper calculation, leads to underweighting of probability.

The pair, after intensively analysing statistics, calculated that the odds of a hole-in-one occurring at a European Golf Tour event were roughly 2.25. Armed with this knowledge, they toured the country targeting independent bookmakers and requesting odds for a hole-in-one being recorded at televised golf tournaments. These small operations didn’t have sophisticated risk assessors so put their finger in the air – i.e. simply relied on an intuitive judgement.

The bookmakers figured that a hole-in-one was a rare event, as they had little or no experience of one happening either personally (for those that played golf) or from television, where limited coverage meant that every tee-shot wasn’t guaranteed to be aired. As a result, quotes ranged from 4.00 up to 101.00. It was a perfect example of underweighting a rare event.

One of the golden rules of gambling is that any bet should be assessed in terms of Expected Value – the average of outcomes each weighted by probability.

Unfortunately, bettors tend to assign weightings to bet options based on how they feel about the probabilities, resulting in the Possibility and Certainty Effects, which can prove very costly.

St. Pierre vs Diaz – Georges favourite for grudge match

Current welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre 1.216* is the big favourite at Pinnacle Sports to retain his belt, and win his 11th consecutive fight in this eagerly anticipated bout with MMA ‘bad boy’ Nick Diaz 4.950* at UFC 158. The two fighters were originally scheduled for a bout back in 2011 until St. Pierre was injured in the build-up.

The champion will be fighting in front of a partisan Canadian crowd, who will be hoping their man can keep his 100% record on home soil – St. Pierre has won all of his ten fights in Canada.

GSP has an impressive UFC record – 23-2-0 – and hasn’t been defeated since 2007, ten fights ago. Of course, that period includes a long layover between 2011/12 due to a knee injury. The 31-year-old will enter the cage with a one” height disadvantage over the man he called “the most disrespectful human being I’ve ever met”, standing at 5’ 11”, but he’ll still possess a two” (76”) reach advantage over his opponent.

Last time out St. Pierre returned from a year-long layoff to beat the interim champion Carlos Condit at UFC 154 via unanimous decision. In fact, six of his last seven fights have gone the distance with the judges ruling in the Canadian’s favour.

Nick Diaz – 26-8-0 – returns from a 12-month drug suspension and is understandably a 4.950* underdog. However, with 11 wins in succession – including victories over Paul Daley, BJ Penn and K.J Noons – before losing to Condit last time out at UFC 143, Diaz will be no pushover and is notorious for his aggressive boxing and exceptional Jiu Jitsu skills.

The six foot 29-year-old southpaw is desperate to avenge his defeat against Condit – that some pundits believed was dubious – and will be looking to upset the odds at UFC 158.

Diaz’s striking ability gives him a chance

If Diaz is to upset the world of MMA at UFC 158 there is a good chance a strike will cause the damage.

The challenger is known throughout the MMA for the amount of strikes he throws, which sees him land almost double St-Pierre’s (3.71) strikes per minute (6.03), albeit with a lesser degree of accuracy (43% to 54%).
Diaz couples his workload with the ability to hit hard – due to his solid boxing technique – and possesses the natural instinct to knock out his opponents.

The American has an impressive 13 knockout victories on his resume, compared to the eight of St-Pierre.
Diaz’ southpaw status will also provide an advantage – St Pierre has only fought two southpaws in his time in the UFC, Frank Trigg in 2005 (submission) and Pete Spratt (submission).

Another interesting statistic is that the champion absorbs just 1.19 strikes per minute due to his 75% defence success rate. Compare this to Diaz, who gets tagged roughly 3.45 times a minute – however, Diaz is likely to be more open to counter-attacks as he is usually the aggressor.

That’s not to say the champion can’t strike – he is one of the most technical and efficient strikers in the UFC – but Diaz’s aggressive brawling style is more likely to end a fight compared to St-Pierre’s measured approach. Six of the American’s last 11 wins have been TKOs.

St-Pierre dominant on the mat

St-Pierre is a fantastic wrestler and Diaz has struggled with solid wrestlers in the past, with three defeats against Diego Sanchez, Joe Riggs, and Sean Sherk – who are not considered to be in the same league as GSP.

The champion’s takedowns and control on the mat are fantastic. St-Pierre averages 4.3 takedowns over 15 minutes with a success rate of 78%, while Diaz musters just 1.52 takedowns with a success rate of just 33%.

Not only strong as the aggressor, St-Pierre has a solid 86% defence against takedowns compared to Diaz who rebuffs just 64% of his opponents’ attacks.

Both fighters are black belts in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, however Diaz is considered to have more craft when it comes to submissions.

The American has won eight bouts via submission, including three of his last seven victories, while the champion has five submission victories in 22 wins and hasn’t made an opponent tap out since 2007.

The stats show that St-Pierre averages 1.23 submission attempts every 15 minutes, which is slightly more than the 1.13 of Diaz. Therefore the American appears to be more efficient in his subs, using them more sparingly but to more deadly effect.

With this said, GSP has defeated BJ Penn – one of the world’s great submission fighters – twice in ground battles, thanks to his submission defence. If the fight ends up in a ground battle, GSP’s excellent submission defence could be key.

Distance could be key for St-Pierre

Both fighters will enter the cage in good condition, despite just one fight in 12 months for St-Pierre and none for Diaz.

St-Pierre is a brute of a fighter and is one of the top pound-for-pound fighters in the world. The champion’s ability to both defend and initiate takedowns is testament to this, while his top control is second-to-none.

Diaz will be constantly engaged in a battle of strength for the duration and how much this will affect him could be key to determining the winner.

With his last five fights ending in decision wins, it is no surprise that St-Pierre’s fights average 12.09 minutes, while the longer the fight goes the more difficult it will become for Diaz who has lost six of his eight defeats by decision.

Both fighters endurance levels are amongst the best in the UFC, so if the fight reaches the latter stages, it will be interesting to see who will prevail, as GSP hasn’t fought anyone with an engine as good as Diaz in the Championship rounds.

Click here for the best St. Pierre vs. Diaz UFC 158 betting odds

Betting on the pope originated in the 15th century (if not earlier) when people would take out life insurance policies on the incumbent head of the Catholic Church. Should the pope prematurely pass away, the speculative life insurees would be up on their venture. Should the Pope live a long life, however, then the bettors would be out of luck – and out of pocket.

Here in the 21st century, placing a bet on the next pope is a much simpler – and less morbid – proposition. Pinnacle Sports has been offering outright markets on the ten most-likely cardinals to don the big hat since February 12th:

Marc Ouellet (Canada) 7.260*

Peter Turkson (Ghana) 3.140*

Francis Arinze (Nigeria) 34.960*

Angelo Scola (Italy) 3.100*

Leonardo Sandri (Argentina) 22.020*

Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy) 18.840*

Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras) 44.980*

Angelo Bagnasco (Italy) 20.430*

Jean-Louis Pierre Tauran (France) 157.130*

Tarcisio Bertone (Italy) 4.630*

To see the latest odds on the next Pope click here.

Pope betting movement – what the odds say

The odds to be the next pope present bettors with an interesting insight into how betting markets work. Despite their expertise, none of the traders at Pinnacle Sports spend their free time studiously engaged in the Vatican’s affairs, and therefore the markets are massively – if not entirely – weighted by public opinion.

A look at how the odds moved over the first four days of going live – as illustrated in the table to the left – show that the initial odds set by the bookmaker had Tarcisio Bertone as massively underrated at 11.000, which quickly moved to 4.800 after a flurry of activity.

The rush to capitalise on his long odds was soon corrected by the market, however, when activity (proportionally) dropped off on the Italian cardinal and he slipped back out to 7.18 by February 21^st. These corrections are displayed on the graphs as a sharp turn followed by a relatively steady (quite horizontal) line.

It’s also interesting to note the spread of odds between potential popes. Initially the favourites were Peter Turkson and Marc Ouellet at 5.000, with the biggest long-shot Jean-Louis Pierre Tauran at 12.000 – a spread of 7 points between them.

After four days, Turkson was leading the pack at 4.550 and Tauran had fallen to 18.36 (a spread of 13.81). By day nine (Feb 21^st), Ouellet was still leading at 4.700 while Tauran had drifted to 37.030 (a 32.33 spread). It’s quite clear from the graph that as the market developed, outsiders drift consistently further and further, while incorrect odds (such as Bertone’s) are sharply corrected by the market.

Not depicted in the graphs is the impact of Cardinal O’Brien’s (Head of Roman Catholic Church in Scotland) resignation on February 25th. The anti-homosexual preacher recently confessed to homosexual activities, inflicting yet another embarrassing blow to the Vatican over its hypocritical adherence to conservative values.

This may have had some influence on the movement of odds, as bettors try to second-guess how the conclave’s decision may be influenced by the scandal. Peter Turkson, for example, has been among favourites from the start, but has made controversially anti-gay comments, which may damage his chances if the O’Brien scandal is considered relevant.

Pope betting tips – things to consider

Like any betting market, there are many factors to consider when betting on who will be the next pope. Understanding the voting methodology for the Papal Conclave is vital in placing an informed bet.

The College of Cardinals – the Church’s most senior officials as appointed by previous popes – elects the new pope. According to the Universi Dominici Gregis, a maximum of 120 cardinals may take place in the election, and none of these may be aged over 80 years-old.

While there are currently 203 cardinals from 69 countries, only 117 of those will be younger than the age limit and therefore eligible to vote. This means that the required number of votes needed – two-thirds of the Conclave plus one – is set at 79 votes (less any cardinals that drop out or pass away in the meantime, such as O’Brien).

Watch the news for Pope betting updates

It’s also important to note that – according to Vatican rules – the conclave must convene between 15 and 20 days after the pope resigns. With Pope Benedict XVI having stood-down on February 28th, bettors should closely follow the news. Influential Roman Catholic blogs, for example, could be a key source of underreported updates.

The period between the pope’s abdication and the conclave will see cardinals attempting to strengthen previous relationships and form coalitions – after all, like traditional elections, the papacy is also based on personal politics.

As well as watching for updates in the news, studying the historic relationships between cardinals is vitally important. Alliances undoubtedly already exist amongst the cardinals, most likely divided by religious ideology.

For example, 67 of the eligible cardinals were appointed by Benedict XVI, so it’s possible to surmise that a majority of those will have similar viewpoints to his. Fifty were appointed by his predecessor John Paul II.

Other distinctions – such as geography – could also prove important – a non-European Pope is yet to be appointed. About half of the Cardinals (61) are European, with 21 of those being Italian. There are also 19 Latin Americans, 14 North Americans, 11 Africans, 11 Asians and one cardinal from Australia.

Bet on the Pope = bet on the future of the church

More than just a pope, the conclave is also choosing the future direction of the church. This means that factors affecting Catholicism should also be considered.

For example, with the decline in the popularity of the Church, will the conclave reach out to key followers in South America by installing the Argentinian candidate Leonardo Sandri or an African in Turkson or Arinze? Or after Ratzinger was implicated in the child abuse scandal, will the electors be particularly interested in a candidate without other skeletons in his closet?

Also, with many viewing Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation due to age, will the conclave aim for a younger candidate? The Pope is now on Twitter, so the Vatican clearly thinks social media is important; maybe a cardinal’s understanding of technology will prove key?

The x-factor in betting on the next Pope

The conclave votes are held in the utmost secrecy, with all forms of communication with the outside world banned. Any notes taken during a day’s session are also burned at the end of the day, so historical voting records are also top secret and subject to rumour and speculation – making it impossible to use this information reliably.

The other x-factor is that technically, the conclave can elect any baptised Roman Catholic male to be pope. Of course, the result will probably be a cardinal, as the conclave has chosen one every time since 1378, and all listed on the Pope odds at Pinnacle Sports hold that position. So on this occasion, a miracle is unlikely to happen.

Moneyline basketball betting

Moneyline markets are the most common and the simplest market for a player to understand the cost of a bet.  Basketball bettors are simply betting on which team will win the game. For example, look at these moneyline odds for the Boston Celtic vs. the Utah Jazz:

Boston Celtics: 3.440

Utah Jazz: 1.364

In this example, the Utah Jazz (1.364) are the favourites to beat the Celtics (3.440) at home. If you staked £10 on the Jazz, you would get a return of £13.64 – which includes your £10 stake. The profit would be £3.64. However, if the Celtics had won, you would win nothing and lose your £10.

If the Celtics win, your return would be £34.40 including your initial £10 stake, which would leave you a profit of £24.40.

Handicap basketball betting

Betting on the handicap is a valuable tool for bettors when one team is heavily favoured over their opponents. To counter the perceived bias in ability, bookmakers offer a handicap to level the playing field.

The handicap number (displayed as either + or – a value, such as +7.5 points) is factored into the final score to determine the game’s outcome for the purpose of the bet. This means that the handicap result is sometimes different from the actual result. For example, look at these two handicap bets:

Golden State Warriors +7.5 2.050

Indiana Pacers -7.5 1.862

If the Pacers won the game (100 – 96), bets on their handicap would actually lose. This is because for the purpose of this bet they started the game with -7.5pts, and therefore we have to subtract 7.5 from their final score. This makes the match outcome 92.5 – 96 in the Warriors’ favour.

If the Pacers won 104-96, the adjusted handicap result is 96.5-96, which means the Pacers still win. This is referred to as “covering the handicap”.

Total basketball betting

Total betting (also known as totals) is a bet on whether the combined points scored in a game will be over or under a set number. For example, look at the totals odds for the Sacramento Kings vs. Miami Heat below:

Over 210.5 1.962

Under 210.5 2.110

If you bet £10 on the game to be over 210.5 points, and the result was 116-98 (an aggregate total of 214 points), you would make a return of £19.62 (£9.62 profit). If you had backed the total score as under 210.5 with the odds of 2.110, you would have lost the bet.

Read more about totals betting – with baseball examples – here.

Despite this article outlining the basic basketball bet types, giving the bettor a solid grounding in understanding how to bet on basketball, there are more advanced bet types such as live betting, accumulators, teasers, futures and props which will be discussed in a separate article.

Click here to see the best basketball odds online at Pinnacle Sports.

Last year’s four-set finalists are the outstanding favourites in the French Open betting at Pinnacle Sports, with Djokovic at a marginally better 2.150* to Nadal’s 2.430* (at the time of writing). The odds are undoubtedly based on the fact Nadal is coming back from six months on sidelines with a knee injury while Djokovic retained the Australian Open for a third year in January, cementing his position as World No.1. The crucial question is whether Nole can also become no.1 on clay?

French Open betting: Nadal vs Djokovic on clay

Over the last decade there has only been one King of Clay – and that’s Rafael Nadal. His winning percentage on clay over the past year is consistent with his career percentage: an amazing 92.9%. That’s 261 wins and just 20 defeats, with an impressive 37 titles to his name.

Djokovic, on the other hand, isn’t even in second place for active players. That honour falls to Roger Federer (ODDS), who currently holds a win percentage of 88.2% for the past year, and 77.1% over his career. The Swiss star has 10 clay court titles and a 178-53 record.

Over the past year Djokovic has lost one in five of his clay court matches, with a win percentage of 81% in the last year and 76.8% over his career. That run includes seven titles and 116 wins, vs 35 defeats.

Nadal’s early clay preparation

Aiding Nadal’s chances are his clear focus on an eighth French Open trophy. The Spaniard played his first two tournaments of 2013 on clay after returning from a seven-month tendon injury in February.

The two tournaments have already provided the World No. 5 with eight singles matches and six doubles outings on the surface this season, while Djokovic has played just once – a Davis Cup tie against 127-ranked Olivier Rochus.

However, the calibre of opposition at the Vina del Mar (the Spaniard finished runner-up to Horacio Zeballos) and in Sao Paulo (where he easily triumphed over David Nalbandian 6-2, 6-3 in the final) were much lower than he should expect to face in France, and over a shorter format.

And even though Nadal had just returned from a long injury, losing 7-6, 6-7, 4-6 to the 73-ranked Horacio Zeballos was a shock to the Spaniard’s fans. Coupled with a defeat to Lukas Rosol (no. 100) in Wimbledon last year, and a defeat to Philipp Kohlschreiber (no. 34) in Germany two weeks before that, there’s evidence that Nadal isn’t as ruthless at closing out the worse players than he has been.

The opposite is true for Djokovic – the last time the Serbian lost to someone outside the top 40 was way back in June 2010, when he succumbed to a 3-6, 6-4, 2-6 defeat to Xavier Malisse.

Therefore while Nadal is a clay court master, his ability to win consistently is less defined than Djokovic’s, and that could be transferring over to his favourite surface. Nadal will also be facing a tougher draw, as he may not even enter the tournament as one of the top four seeds (currently ranked fifth).

Rafael’s external bonus

It’s also important to remember that the French Open is one of the increasingly rare opportunities for players to be exposed to the elements.

Nadal holds the highest win percentage for active players playing outdoors (85%), although Federer actually pips him to the best results over the last 12 months (87.9% to 87.8%). Djokovic himself is not far behind either of them, with a win percentage of 86.4%.

Djokovic or Nadal for French Open betting?

There’s no doubt that these two players are the outstanding candidates to lift the French Open trophy, but will Nadal’s pedigree overcome Djokovic’s form?

While the Serbian has never won the French Open, he’s had numerous successes on clay – including wins over Nadal in Madrid and Rome in 2011. It’s important to note that Nadal got revenge in 2012, beating Djokovic in the final of Rome and Monte Carlo.

In truth, the real question for French Open betting is probably over Nadal, rather than the ever-consistent Djokovic. After a career besieged by injuries, is Nadal’s scrambling style finally taking its toll on his body? With the psychological impact of losing to lesser players, as well as the nagging doubt over what is a recurring injury, can Nadal still reach peak intensity at the highest level?

Click here to see the latest French Open odds.

An analysis of the Six Nations competition since its inception in 2000 showed that teams playing at home won 59.31% of games over 13 seasons, proving a distinct home advantage.

This figure increases to an even more impressive 73.4% when we remove the two teams who have yet to win the Six Nations (Italy and Scotland). While this information proves the widely held belief that home teams perform better, it gets more interesting when comparing the HFA of individual teams.

HFA for individual teams in Six Nations betting

To calculate the Home Field Advantage, take the number of points scored at home per season (HF) and minus the number of points conceded at home (HA). Then divide by the number of home games played in a season (2 or 3 – three teams play at home twice one year, and three the following).

For the table below, we calculated each nations’ results for the past five seasons and their average for the entire Six Nations tournament.

It is no coincidence that the two most successful nations in the Six Nations tournament France (five championships) and England (four championships) have the highest average home points differentials, scoring (on average) 12.09 and 18.47 more points than they concede at home.

What is interesting is that despite being the third most successful nation with three championships, Wales (4.36) actually have a lower average home points differential than Ireland (11.33). Even after eliminating Wales’ disastrous 2003 wooden spoon campaign, their average home points differential only works out at (5.06).

Italy and Scotland have performed the worst in the Six Nations, holding 12 of the 13 wooden spoons between them – Italy (9) and Scotland (3) – and it comes as no surprise to see them both have a negative average home points differential of -14.03 and -5.38 respectively.

However, to understand each nations HFA better we need to compare each nations home points differential with their away differential to note just how much better they play under the influence of a home crowd.

Home vs. Away Points Differential

Unsurprisingly, England tops the list for teams with much better home results, scoring an average of 12.89 points at home than they do on the road. Ireland and Wales aren’t too far from this number, with the Irish scoring 11.58 and the Welsh at 10.36 more points at home than away.

Scotland, Italy and France all have notably smaller differences between their home and away results, scoring 7.32, 7 and 4.53 more points at home (respectively).

What causes these big differences is unknown, but there are numerous factors that could have a major influence. Discovering these factors – and noting when they are in play – could go a long way to improving your Six Nations betting results.

Possible Influences of HFA?

While the stats suggest each team performs better at home than away, it’s almost impossible to quantify this to a specific home-field advantage handicap. This is due to a number of external influences, whereby each influence affects the other.

One major reason is that each nation’s mean HFA changes year-on-year. Another is that no one has managed to objectively define the factors that influence HFA, which could range from form, to crowds, to future intentions and a feel-good factor that winning breeds.

Further work and analysis needs to be done, however there may be an opportunity to make a Six Nations rugby betting profit by working out a teams HFA more accurately than the bookmaker.

How to bet on Cricket at Pinnacle Sports

There are many ways to bet on cricket with Pinnacle Sports. Bettors have a fantastic opportunity to bet on different markets with a variety of different betting formats such as:

1×2 Cricket Betting:

1×2 markets are the most common and the simplest market for a player to understand the cost of a bet. 1×2 cricket bettors are simply betting on which team will win the game.

Cricket Futures Betting:

Pinnacle Sports offer a number of cricket futures betting opportunities. Take an outright punt on a team before the coin toss and wait to see if your bet brings in a profit. Future cricket betting odds are offered on both individual games and overall tournament/series winners.

Cricket Proposition Betting:

Pinnacle Sports offer cricket proposition betting throughout the cricket season. Bet on both team and player propositions as well as game props on the ICC World Cup, Test Matches and One-Day Internationals.

Cricket Betting guide

Cricket is an all year round sport, and there are plenty of cricket betting opportunities monthly. Pinnacle Sports offer cricket betting for the most popular domestic and International competitions and series, including:

ICC Cricket World Cup Betting

Cricket bettors have the opportunity to bet on both the One-Day and Twenty20 World Cups at Pinnacle Sports.

ICC Test Matches Betting

Betting on Test Match cricket is becoming increasingly popular, as it is the longest format of the game, with many possible permutations affecting the outcome of the five-day contest.

ICC One-Day Internationals Betting

There are also plenty of betting opportunities in the shorter formats of international cricket. With 50-over and Twenty20 series accompanying every tour these short formats provide huge betting interest.

IPL Betting

The flashiness of the Indian Premier League, which attracts the world’s best players, also offers opportunities for punters to bet on cricket. The tournament has proved to be a big hit with fans and with betting enthusiasts alike.

Domestic League/Championships Betting

In addition to International cricket there is plenty of domestic league and championships to bet on with Pinnacle Sports.

Cricket betting tips

Despite not being one of the largest online betting markets, there is a profit to be made on cricket betting, even if you are not an expert on the game. The reason for this is that like baseball, cricket is a game dominated by statistics.

This therefore gives the opportunity for bettors with limited knowledge of cricket to have an instant and reliable source of statistics to help them make an informed bet.

However, it is preferable to gather as much knowledge before betting on a market, and cricket in no different.

Studying cricket statistics is a great way to establish the strength and weaknesses of each team, so you can attempt to gain an edge over the bookmaker.

This must be done however for each format of the game – Test, one day and T20. Certain teams and players perform better at one format than the others, so thorough research is required.

Studying historical results of the stadium will also give you an advantage. For instance, it is vital to study the average first innings scores at each ground for each format.

Research what variables have affected results in the past such as pitch conditions, time of match and weather.

By profiling stadiums in such a way can quickly give the bettor an impression of how previous sides batting first have fared on particular pitches, and whether or not batting first will be an advantage.

Weather is perhaps the most important variable when it comes to cricket betting because it can dramatically affect the outcome more so than other sports.

Factoring in that cricket won’t take place in bad light or rain, slight changes in weather conditions can also have dramatic affects on the outcome of the game.

For instance the ball will deviate less on a dry, sunny day, which will favour the batsman, while in overcast and humid conditions the ball will swing in the air, severely hindering a batting teams’ chances of scoring a good score.

Click here for the latest Cricket odds.

Aussie rules football – a brief background

Aussie rules football was first played in 1859 in Melbourne, and since then has gradually evolved into a major national sport. Its professional league – the AFL Premiership – currently stands as only one of five professional sports leagues in the world with an average attendance above 30,000, alongside NFL, MLB and soccer’s Premier League and Bundesliga.

The AFL Premiership culminates in the AFL Grand Final, which is contested by the best two teams of the ‘Final 8’. It is currently the highest attended club championship event in the world.

Aussie rules football – the markets

Pinnacle Sports offers the following markets on AFL matches:

1x2s (Moneylines) - 1×2 markets are the most common market and the simplest way for a player to understand the cost of a bet. 1×2 Aussie rules football bettors are ultimately betting on who will win the match, or whether that the game will end in a tie.

Handicaps (Sides) - . Betting on the handicap occurs when one team is favoured over their opponents. To counter the perceived bias in ability, bookmakers offer a handicap of points to level the playing field. These goals are then added to the game’s final score, and the winner is the team that wins with these additions

For example ,Team B may be big 1×2 favourites, and so have a handicap of negative points to level the playing field.

Futures – Aussie rules football betting fans can place a wager on a team “to win the AFL Premiership’, as well as which ‘teams to make the final 8’, and more

Props – Available for the Grand Final, Props are bets concerning what will happen in the game, including offerings such as ‘Which team will score the first point?”

Aussie rules football – competition guide

The AFL Premiership is the primary Aussie rules football competition, consisting of 18 teams. There are 23 matches played in a home-and-away season, which usually starts in late March and finishes early September. Teams receive four points for a win and two points for a draw, if teams are tied in a position then ‘percentage’ is used to separate them – the ratio of points scored to points conceded.

It is a fixed league, so there is no danger of relegation. The incentive is for teams to finish in the top eight in order to reach the ‘Grand Final’ and win the Premiership. The final eight compete in a finals series throughout September, with the best two teams playing in a Grand Final, traditionally it is played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on the last Saturday of September

Click here for the latest Australian Rules Football Odds.

The essence of the Fibonacci Strategy for soccer betting – published in 2007 by Fragiskos Archontakis and Evan Osborne - is simple: bet on a draw, and if you lose, bet on another one. Repeat this process until you win. There are only two additional – and vital – rules to follow:

1. Only bet on draws when the probability is above 2.618
2. Increase your betting stake in a way that follows the Fibonacci sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 etc.

The idea is based upon a theory from 1989 that the draw is the most difficult for bookmakers to predict, and therefore can be exploited. The idea is that as long as you continually increase your stake, any win will overcome your previous losses.

The Fibonacci Strategy in practice

Looking at data from the 2011/12 Premier League, there were 93 draws in 380 games – therefore 24.5% of all games ended in a tie. Interestingly, the odds for a potential draw in all 380 ties were above the 2.618 threshold suggested as the lower limit by Archontakis and Osborne.

This means there should be – on average – a payout every four games. This means the winning stake would be the fourth Fibonacci number: 5, with a total bet each time £10 (the winning stake added to the failing three stakes before it: 1, 1, and 3). Considering the average odds for a draw over the season were 4.203, this means that the average winnings would be £21.02 (£5 stake multiplied by the odds), with a profit of £11.02 when the stakes have been subtracted.

Over 380 games, this equates to a theoretical profit of £1786.7 – all from an initial stake of just £1.

Fibonacci Strategy Drawbacks

However, there are numerous practical limitations that prevent the Fibonacci sequence from printing money. For a start, many games are played concurrently, meaning there’s no option to increase your stake to the next Fibonacci number if a draw doesn’t occur, as the games will finish at the same time. Instead, bettors might consider applying a Fibonacci betting sequence to individual teams.

However, this means that long streaks without draws could cause huge holes in bettors’ bank balances. Looking at the longest Premier League streak without a draw (Manchester United in 2008/09), the Red Devils went 20 games without drawing, before finally succumbing to a 0-0 tie with Arsenal.

Because the Fibonacci sequence increases exponentially, bettors would have to have bet £10,946 on that final game to follow the sequence. Including that bet, anyone following the betting system would had to have staked £28,656 – a huge amount for a system that usually provides winnings of just £21.02. The odds for a draw on that game were 4.1 however, which would have provided winnings of £44,878.60, or a profit of £16.222.60. With Fibonacci, the increased stakes also provide impressive returns.

The Fibonacci Sequence explained

The Fibonacci sequence is one of the most widely known numeric sequences in mathematics, characterised by its simple formula:

N³ = N¹ + N² 

This indicates that (after the two starting numbers), each additional number in the sequence is the sum of the two preceding numbers. For example, the Fibonacci sequence begins 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and 21. Looking at the start of the sequence:

• N¹ = 1, N² = 1, and therefore N³ = 2
• N¹ = 1, N² = 2, and therefore N³ = 3
• N¹ = 2, N² = 3, and therefore N³ = 5
• N¹ = 3, N² = 5, and therefore N³ = 8

Conclusion – so does Fibonacci work?

Like the Fibonacci sequence itself, the Fibonacci betting strategy is best appreciated as a mathematical concept. As with all progressive betting systems, the ideas work perfectly when provided with an unlimited bankroll and unlimited limits. When real-world constraints are considered, however, Fibonacci succumbs to the same fate as all real-world betting – the unknown.

Using the Man Utd example above, a bettor would have to have risked a total of £28,656 over 21 occasions to earn a profit of £16,222. Anyone without the final £10,946 required to place the final, winning bet, would be £20k out of pocket and with no return in sight.

Because everyone will reach a limit at some point – whether that is due to their bankroll running short or one imposed by a bookmaker – the Fibonacci sequence cannot continue forever, and therefore is most likely not a profitable long-term solution.

Giant Price looks for knockout punch

Unbeaten heavyweight contender David Price is the clear 1.091* favourite to beat 41-year-old veteran Tony Thompson who can be backed as an 8.010* outsider.

Englishman Price is ranked 8^th in the IBF and 14^th in the WBO, while Thompson is ranked 11^th in the IBF.

Price has an unblemished 15-0 record and at 29-years-old is on the path to a world title fight. However, questions remain over the quality of opponent he has fought this far, and when he faces Thompson it will be the third fight in a row where the opponent is in his 40s.

The Liverpudlian adopts an orthodox stance and will enter the ring at 6ft 8″ and with a reach of 82″. Thompson meanwhile, will be 12-years older, and arriving with a 3″ height deficit and a slight reach disadvantage.

Price looks for another knockout against Thompson

After 15-fights Price has gained a reputation of a big-puncher and has been knocking out opponents for fun.

After cleaning up the domestic division, Price is now dipping his toes into the international scene, and will look to make an impression by becoming only the second man to knock Thompson out – Wladimir Klitschko has KO’d Thompson twice.

Price has demolished John McDermott, Sam Sexton, Audley Harrison, and Matt Skelton inside a combined eight rounds, while his fights on average last 2.6 rounds.

With a knockout percentage of 86.67 and after winning his last nine fights by knockout, it is understandable why Price was named 2012 ESPN prospect of the year.

Price possesses a great right hand that he regularly delivers well and Thompson’s southpaw stance could potentially open up the opportunity for Price to land his money point.

Can Thompson upset the odds?

Thompson will look to turn back the clocks after suffering his third career defeat against Wladimir Klitschko.

Thompson is a reasonably skilled boxer and is a tough fighter who makes it difficult for his opponents to look good. He has performed well against second-rate opposition but when he has stepped up in class, he has struggled.

However, Thompson is vastly more experienced than Price and has boxed 146 more rounds than his younger opponent. The American averages 4.7 rounds in his fights and has a knockout percentage of 61.54%.

Thompson who boasts a record of (36-3-0, 24 KO’s) will look to test Price, who is yet to be punched hard in the professional ranks.

Price was hurt badly in the amateur ranks against Roberto Cammarelle and Bermane Stiverne, and if Thompson can take Price into the later rounds an upset could be on the cards.

Although this fight appears one-sided, bettors must be cautious against writing off a veteran boxer who may be facing his final payday with little to lose. Especially, when he is fighting a big favourite who has never been tested.

Rousey odds on favourite to win

Like most pundits, the oddsmakers at Pinnacle Sports have Ronda Rousey as the overwhelming 1.091* favourite to win the maiden UFC women’s bout and remain undefeated.

In doing so, 26-year-old Rousey would inflict a third defeat onto Liz Carmouche, who can be backed as the massive 9.170* underdog.

28-year-old Carmouche won six fights on the bounce before suffering defeats against Sarah Kaufman and Marloes Coenen, but has since regained her form to win her last two fights.

In comparison, Rousey is undefeated in her six fights, winning all of them inside the first round. Her average fight time lasts a mere 1.36 minutes compared to Carmouche, who often becomes embroiled in long battles spanning an average of 12.15 minutes.

The two fighters will enter the cage at the same height (5’6″), with Rousey holding a slight 2″ reach advantage over her opponent.

Rousey is renowned for her takedowns, brutal submissions and explosiveness, while Carmouche will look to utilise her strength and striking.

Striking – Carmouche may hold the advantage

If Carmouche has a chance of upsetting the odds, she must keep the fight off the mat. Despite having a 2″ reach disadvantage, Carmouche will try to land big striking blows on her opponent.

Carmouche possesses an array of striking skills, including Muay Thai, Taekwondo, Karate. These undoubtedly help the American land an impressive 4.53 strikes per minute, with an accuracy of 56% and five of her eight wins have come by way of knockout.

Although Rousey’s striking numbers are not as high – 1.87 strikes landed per – that doesn’t mean she can’t pack a punch. She showed against Miesha Tate that when it comes to trading blows, she can give as good as she gets.

Carmouche must avoid both Rousey’s clinching attempts and jab; otherwise she will be in trouble. Rousey, on the other hand, will attempt to close the distance safely in order to take the fight to the mat.

In terms of striking defence, Rousey avoids 66% of her opponent’s strikes, while Carmouche has a defence of just 54% and absorbs 3.72 strikes per minute.

Wrestling – Rousey is an expert on the mat

With her Olympic credentials and six wins via submission, Rousey has mastered the art of wrestling on the mat.

Renowned wrestler Miesha Tate was the first fighter to take Rousey down, and she paid for it minutes later when Rousey made her tap out.

Rousey has won all six of her fights in the first round via an armbar submission, which showcases her unbelievable power on the mat and her preference to take the fight to the ground as quickly as possible.

In comparison Carmouche has just two wins by submission, but has a blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, which proves she has a decent ground game.

However, with an average of 2.45 takedowns per 15-minutes and an accuracy of just 35%, Carmouche’s best chances of victory should be on her feet.

Rousey, meanwhile, attempts 11.69 takedowns per 15 minutes, with a success rate of 63%.

Will Rousey remain undefeated and win the first-ever women’s UFC bout or will Carmouche upset the odds and turn the bout on its head? Click here for the latest UFC 157 odds.

The fundamental principle of earning a profit from live soccer betting is the same as for any form of speculation: bettors need to take advantage of market inefficiencies. That means calculating when the odds do not reflect the true probability. In live markets, there are specific areas bettors should focus on to discover – and exploit – these inefficiencies.

Rare & random – It only takes a second to score

Soccer commentators are renowned for churning out meaningless clichés, but one of the most frequent – ‘It only takes a second to score a goal’ – is actually quite insightful. There are a huge number of potential goals in any given game – making a live soccer bettor’s life interesting.

In proportion, however, the actual number scored is very small – goals are rare. And goals are random – from a statistical perspective – as they don’t come in clusters, so one goal doesn’t necessarily trigger further goals. So how do you predict something that is both random and rare?

Professional bettors and bookmakers use a vast array of complex statistical models that try to predict goal distribution, which we’ll discuss in future issues of the Pulse, but at a fundamental level, soccer is played and coached by humans, who can exhibit distinct tendencies. It’s the job of the bettor to understand and quantify the impact of those, and recognise when the market’s estimation of outcomes might not accurately reflect their impact. So for now, let’s start at a basic level by looking at goal distribution for last season’s Premier League over six intervals of 15 minutes. This data is freely available over the internet.

Goal Distribution – When are goals more likely?

Graph 1 shows that goals tend to become more frequent as the game progresses, saving the period leading up to half time, where there is a slight spike.

This data is the overall picture for the Premier League, but by investigating the idiosyncrasies and varying approaches of individual teams and their components – players and coaching staff – things can look very different.

Let’s look at the same data for Reading (accurate up to February 11^th) in Graph 2. The final 15 minutes of games involving the Royals have produced three times as many goals as the first, and over four times that of the period from 46-60 minutes. It’s vital to know this kind of information when betting live, as it shows that Reading’s matches have been playing out in a fashion very different to the “average team” that you might be used to.

This could bias you in two ways. If you predominantly watched Reading’s games this season, you could over-estimate the number of times a team scores near the end of the game. Not watched any Reading? Then you might underestimate their chance of grabbing a last-minute winner (or more likely, an equaliser).

It’s equally important to accurately attribute a cause of this. For example, much has been made of Adam Le Fondre’s super-sub performances this term, but that refers to just two specific games. The Royals have scored just one more than they have conceded (14 to 13) in the final 15 minutes. The distorted view the media gives is worthy of a completely separate article.

As the season progresses Reading’s distribution may well tend towards the more familiar season wide frequencies (regressing to the mean) but it still presents(ed) an opportunity to exploit if you can pin-point what is behind it, whether it is simply a blip, or is reflective of something more significant.

Goal distribution is a useful headline measure, but this broad data reflects a myriad of goal-trigger events that measure superiority and game intensity, which should be investigated in more detail.

Game Intensity – it’s a game of two halves

With a game in full flow, bettors have access to a lot of freely available data – % possession, shots (on and off target) & corners – all of which hint that goals maybe imminent and help define game intensity. Keeping tabs of these can give help provide a good assessment on who is on top, but given they are no secret, the trick is to use these in conjunction with subjective analysis. The sharp bettor for example, will see where odds are over-valuing a team playing at an unsustainable pace.

Example 1

In the recent El Clasico meeting, the Copa del Rey semi-final between Real Madrid and Barcelona on January 30th at the Bernabeu, Real successfully pressed Barca for the first half but the intensity at which they played was simply unsustainable (at least to the trained eye). In-running bettors would have been making a mistake to predict the final outcome based on that first 45 minutes.

Example 2

A similar example of misleading game stats would be last season’s Champions League final between Bayern Munich and Chelsea, which – based purely on possession and interaction stats – was one of the most lopsided matches ever. The Bavarians superiority was only half the story, the other important element was Chelsea’s tactical intention to invite pressure and try to land a lucky counter-punch. They made a game plan, followed it, and won on penalties. Bettors who were simply watching the game stats would have considered it insane to bet on Chelsea to lift the trophy.

The most important fact regarding game intensity is that it isn’t a constant. There are some basic examples where the balance of possession can be skewed with things like the crowd intensity, adrenalin and situational factors coming into play:

• Derby games
• Cup games, especially with unbalanced match-ups e.g English FA Cup
• Relegation/Promotion battles
• Tournament scenarios

In these circumstances seeing the game as literally two separate halves (increasing our cliché quota) for betting purposes can be a smart move. (1^st and second half lines are available at Pinnacle Sports for all major leagues).

The upcoming Capital One League Cup Final between Premier League Swansea and Bradford City – three leagues below – could provide an interesting example of a game where intensity may fluctuate quite markedly.

Our introduction to Goal Distribution and game intensity are really just scratching the surface of the subject of live soccer betting. In each of the coming monthly Pulses we will try to introduce some further angles that should help bettors think more of what lies beneath.

Here are some teasers to whet the appetite:

How significant are substitutions & formation changes?

It is no secret that highly skilled players like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo or Gareth Bale can change games, whether coming on or off the pitch, and so the impact is built into the market. How accurately, however, does the average bettor quantify the potential impact of players further down the food-chain? What about team formations and how to quantify the significance of the changes of systems during games?

Evaluating the impact of Yellow & Red cards

Studies have shown that yellow and red cards decrease the probability of winning, and that the expected number of goals tends to decrease when the favourite loses a player, while the expected number of goals generally increase when an underdog sees red. We will try to throw some light on the significance to game outcomes of cards.

By introducing some concepts for live soccer betting, even at a relatively simplistic level, the intention of the Pulse is to get bettors thinking about what constitutes to an edge. This should hopefully encourage bettors to then move their knowledge to the next level and become a more informed bettor.

In the Champions League there is a strongly held belief that the team playing their second leg at home has a huge advantage over their rivals. It’s easy to see how this myth started when you consider that, out of 152 Champions League ties between 1994/95 and 2009/10, the team allowed to play the second leg at home progressed to the next stage 85 times.

That’s an estimated probability of 56% that the return-leg home side will progress – a margin significant enough to influence anyone’s Champions League betting.

Destroying the Myth

Unfortunately, like most myths, this is wildly inaccurate when placed under scrutiny. The result above completely ignores how Champions League second round ties are created.

In the second round, the teams that play at home in the second leg are always the group winners. This means that most favourites get to play at home in the second leg. By placing most (if not all) of the favourites in one place, the average is skewed to the 56% we saw earlier.

For example, imagine if you moved Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munich and Chelsea to the north of England. Would you say that the north of England produced the best football teams? No – you would simply notice that the best teams have moved up north, and that the area has no impact.

A simple way to remove this bias is to eliminate second-round ties from the data. The later rounds no longer guarantee that the favourites will play at home in the second leg, and therefore this can more fairly determine how often the side with a return match at home progresses.

So how often do the teams playing their second leg at home – excluding the second round – progress? Exactly 50% of the time.

Send in the Statisticians

Things get even more damning for the home-team theory when you examine the work of statisticians Manuel Eugster, Jan Gertheiss and Sebastian Kaiser, who researched the subject in 2010.

Their frequency table (displayed below) showed that on the 22 occasions when a group winner met another group winner in the knockout stages, it didn’t matter who played the second leg at home. Both home and away sides won 11 times – exactly 50%.

The frequency table also highlighted two other interesting trends:

> On the nine occasions when a runner-up met another runner-up, the team playing at home in the second leg actually triumphed just 33.3% of the time.

> When group winners played the second leg away to group runners-up, the progression rate was just 50%.

These points contradict each other. The first one suggests that teams actually do better when playing away in the second leg, as more runner-up teams progressed. The second point suggests that group runner-ups can win equally as many as group winners, if the runner-up has the second leg at home.

As the above statements are mutually exclusive, and therefore both can’t be true, there must be other factors at work. The most obvious reason for these anomalies is the difference in the ability of teams who finish runner-up.

For example, runners-up in difficult groups are usually of a much higher standard than those in “soft” groups. This year Real Madrid, Manchester City, Borussia Dortmund and Ajax – all domestic league winners – were placed in a group together, you’d expect the runner-up to do exceedingly well in the competition.

Refining the Data

Eugster, Gertheiss and Kaiser also noticed that there can be marked differences in the quality of group winners and runner-ups, and so refined their data by using UEFA coefficients, which use a club’s last five seasons of European form, rather than just the eight games of the group stages.

The statisticians coupled this with what is known as a logistic regression model (click here to see their calculations), to prove that the better teams progressed whether or not they played the second leg at home or away.

They also noted that teams of a very similar ability progressed an equal number of times whether they were at home or away. Therefore there was absolutely no advantage in playing the second leg at home – despite what television pundits might suggest.

João’s tale starts on a sad note. Last year, his faithful canine companion of 14 years unfortunately passed away, leaving a four-legged void in his life.

In December João adopted a cute little puppy but struggled to find a suitable name for his new best friend. He searched long and hard for inspiration, trying to think of a name that would befit a loyal, reliable and trustworthy companion. The name he eventually came up with … Iris Pinnacle.

João is no casual bettor, he is a dedicated arbitrager, and so more than anyone appreciates the approach Pinnacle Sports takes, given we are unique among bookmakers with our Arbitrage Friendly Policy.

Why we are the arbitrager’s best friend

João explains in his words why Pinnacle Sports are the arbitrager’s best friend:

“Pinnacle Sports is what I depend on to pay the rent, the bills, to eat and to survive. It is the very unique bookmaker that allow us to play big and at a small-juice. If you are starting in arbitrage betting or you are a professional arber, this is the bookmaker you got to have. Pinnacle Sports is not just a bookmaker, it is the one all the other bookmakers wished to be!”

Share Your Story

If you – like João – are an avid Pinnacle Sports fan, and have done something dramatic to show it, please share your stories by sending them to contact@pinnaclesports.com or @PinnacleSports.