stat.MLApr 19, 2026

Forecast Sports Outcomes under Efficient Market Hypothesis: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Odds-Only and Generalised Linear Models

Authors: Kaito Goto, Naoya Takeishi, Takehisa Yairi

Organizations: Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Japan

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Converting betting odds into accurate outcome probabilities is a fundamental challenge in order to use betting odds as a benchmark for sports forecasting and market efficiency analysis. In this study, we propose two methods to overcome the limitations of existing conversion methods. Firstly, we propose an odds-only method to convert betting odds to probabilities without using historical data for model fitting. While existing odds-only methods, such as Multiplicative, Shin, and Power exist, they do not adjust for biases or relationships we found in our betting odds dataset, which consists of 90014 football matches across five different bookmakers. To overcome these limitations, our proposed Odds-Only-Equal-Profitability-Confidence (OO-EPC) method aligns with the bookmakers' pricing objectives of having equal confidence in profitability for each outcome. We provide empirical evidence from our betting odds dataset that, for the majority of bookmakers, our proposed OO-EPC method outperforms the existing odds-only methods. Beyond controlled experiments, we applied the OO-EPC method under real-world uncertainty by using it for six iterations of an annual basketball outcome forecasting competition. Secondly, we propose a generalised linear model that utilises historical data for model fitting and then converts betting odds to probabilities. Existing generalised linear models attempt to capture relationships that the Efficient Market Hypothesis already captures. To overcome this shortcoming, our proposed Favourite-Longshot-Bias-Adjusted Generalised Linear Model (FL-GLM) fits just one parameter to capture the favourite-longshot bias, providing a more interpretable alternative. We provide empirical evidence from historical football matches where, for all bookmakers, our proposed FL-GLM outperforms the existing multinomial and logistic generalised linear models.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 20, 2026cs.LG

FIFA World Cup 2026 as a Contamination-Free Benchmark for LLM Forecasting Agents: Four Models, a Bookmaker, and 104 Matches

We introduce WC2026-Agents, a benchmark and dataset for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as autonomous forecasting agents on real, future events. For every one of the 104 matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, four frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.8, ChatGPT (GPT-5.5, high reasoning), Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok (Expert Mode) -- ran an identical search-act-reflect loop: gather evidence with a web tool, commit to a 1X2 (team-A win / draw / team-B win) distribution and a virtual 100-USD bet, and, after the match, reflect given only the final score. Because every match kicked off after the models' training cutoffs, the benchmark is contamination-free by construction. Crucially, we pair the four agents with a fifth competitor drawn from the same information environment -- the pre-match betting market -- collected as per-match 1X2 odds, giving an economically grounded baseline and letting us score not just what an agent predicts but what it does with money. The release contains 416 forecasts and 414 reflections with verbatim reasoning, ground truth (including penalty shootouts), odds, and a reproducible evaluation suite. A reference evaluation surfaces findings that raw accuracy hides: the four agents issue an identical top pick in 92% of matches and none beats the market's Brier score; indeed, a naive flat stake on the market favorite out-earns all four agents. Yet the agents diverge sharply as decision-makers: betting return-on-investment ranges from -18% to +10%, fading the market is unprofitable for all four, the share of forecasts that cite the market ranges from 12% to 100%, and self-reported error rates on wrong picks range from 36% to 86%. The benchmark thus measures calibration, decision quality, and self-knowledge -- axes on which frontier models differ even when their predictions do not. Data and code: https://github.com/graphuofm/FIFA2026LLM
Jiacheng Ding, Cong Guo, Jason Xu
BettingFrontier ModelsContamination-Aware Benchmarking Framework
AskPDF
Aug 4, 2026cs.CL

WorldCup Arena: Prospective, Leakage-Free Evaluation of Frontier LLMs on a Live Tournament

Benchmarks that measure the forecasting ability of large language models are almost always retrospective: the event has happened, the answer is somewhere on the Web, and the evaluation must defend itself against memorisation. We report the opposite design. Over the 39 days of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, six frontier LLMs -- all with extended thinking and native server-side web search -- were asked before every kickoff, one match at a time, to fill in a seven-market prediction card for all 104 matches, plus 12 group winners and a pre-tournament outright pool; no answer existed when the question was asked, so the evaluation is leakage-free by construction rather than by filtering, and the frozen archive holds 4,494 scored predictions. What the tournament establishes is a set of behaviours the six systems share. On match outcome they average 63.9%, level with backing the bookmaker's favourite -- which is in fact what they usually do. They agree with one another far more often than they are right, so a majority vote adds nothing. They under-commit to draws and to goals, and crowd their scoreline picks onto a single prototypical result. Accuracy tracks how lopsided a fixture is rather than how much is known about it: it collapses in the closest ties, where the dossiers are richest, while questions about the tournament as a whole are answered well. On this task the current generation of frontier systems is not sharply differentiated: the standings hold up at the top and the bottom across the run and churn in the middle, and the margins stay narrow throughout. The briefing dossiers, fixtures and official results are released as a benchmark, together with the scoring code.
Zhenran Wang, Zhonghan Bian, Jinsong Li +1
Prediction MarketsFrontier ModelsLeaderboardScoring
AskPDF
Jul 7, 2026cs.AI

When do prophets profit in prediction markets?

Prediction markets aggregate dispersed beliefs into prices that act as probabilistic forecasts of uncertain events. Classical theory establishes a clean equivalence between forecasting accuracy and trading profit, but only for the specific automated market maker (AMM) design. However, the largest exchanges today are based on central limit order books in which informed forecasters routinely lose money while uninformed strategies can profit on simple heuristics. We resolve this discrepancy by establishing a formal equivalence between predictive accuracy and profitability. For any strictly proper scoring rule SS, we exhibit a "proper" betting strategy that depends only on the forecaster's prediction p\mathbf{p} and the market price q\mathbf{q}, and earns positive expected profit whenever p\mathbf{p} outperforms q\mathbf{q} under SS and the market has sufficient liquidity. Moreover, this proper betting is essentially the only strategy with such robust profitability guarantee. The proof rests on a decomposition of expected profit that strictly generalizes the classical AMM guarantee and also explains how strategies can profit without an accuracy edge. Empirically, across thousands of forecasts by AI models, proper betting is the only strategy that reliably converts accuracy into profit, and we further identify systematic forecasting personas and show how the optimal proper strategy varies across them. A month-long live deployment on Kalshi achieves +80.33%+80.33\% return on investment with a Sharpe ratio of 3.353.35.
Anri Gu, Nicole Kagan, Alec Sun +2
Prediction MarketsLimit Order BookOptimal Actions
AskPDF