Pinnacle

What Are Blackjack Side Bets?Side bets are bonus bets placed on a round of Blackjack on outcomes beyond whether the player or dealer will win. The majority are staked at the start of the round before the cards have been dealt alongside regular bets and many have fixed odds that usually offer greater payouts than the simple 2:1 rewarded for beating the dealer.Play Blackjack at Pinnacle Casino

Play Blackjack

Side bets provide an exciting way to make Blackjack games more interesting whilst offering you a greater number of ways to win. So what are side bets, what side bets are available and are they worth it? Read on to find out.

Blackjack Side Bets Explained

Finding a niche market in betting can often lead to value. This can be anything from specialist knowledge of handball betting to extensive experience in betting on Japanese baseball. Providing you know more than the bookmaker, there is money to be made.  &lt;Bet on soccer at Pinnacle&gt; They also make for interesting and potentially profitable bets, as they can be a little more reliable

Soccer odds

A corner is one of the most inexplicably exciting events in soccer. Only around three per cent of them lead to a goal, but you can guarantee that the attacking team’s fans will roar their approval and encouragement if their team are awarded one. Read on to find out how you can benefit from betting on corners.

Corners betting in soccer: Value in a lesser-known market

Poisson Distribution is a mathematical concept for translating mean averages into a probability for variable outcomes across a distribution. For example, if we know Manchester City average 1.7 goals per game, so by putting the Poisson Distribution formula tells us that this average equates to Manchester City&nbsp;scoring 0 goals 18.3% of the time, 1 goal 31% of the time, 2 goals 26.4% of the time and 3 goals 15% of the time.

Bet on soccer at Pinnacle

Poisson Distribution: Predict the score in soccer betting

What is Expected Value?The amount a player can expect to win or lose if they were to place a bet on the same odds many times over, calculated through a simple equation multiplying your probability of winning with the amount you could win per bet, and subtracting the probability of losing multiplied by the amount lost per bet.A simple example of Expected Value (EV) put into practice -&nbsp;if you were

Bet Now

The Expected Value of a bet shows us how much we can expect to win (on average) per bet, and as such is the most valuable calculation a bettor can make when comparing bookmakers' odds. How can you calculate Expected Value in sports betting in order to predict your winnings? Read on to find out.

How to Calculate Expected Value

Nishikori is a professional ATP tennis bettor. Additionally, Nishikori provides his tips on Pyckio and, to date, has achieved a yield of over 6.5% on more than 4,400 bets in ATP matches, the most liquid tennis market, at Pinnacle odds. He has a highly active Twitter account with a passion for educating about the world of tennis betting, where he frequently conducts analysis of the tennis market from different perspectives.

Nishikori

<div class="cta-container follow-pinnacle">
<h2>GET THE LATEST AUSTRALIAN OPEN INSIGHTS</h2>
Bet on the Australian Open with Pinnacle
<a id="TwitterFollowCTA" class="button" href="https://twitter.com/PinnacleSports" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Follow Pinnacle </a></div>
I’m a tennis bettor. Specifically, I’m a underdogs men's tennis bettor. In my more than 4,000 selections since 2016, my average price (always using Pinnacle’s odds) has been 2.600.
<div class="articleV2 unordered-list">
<ul>
<li><a style="color: #f50;" id="articleLink" href="https://pyckio.com/i/#!account/nishikori" target="_blank">Follow Nishikori on Pyckio</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
Over the years, I have discovered that my betting results in grand slam matches were much worse than my results in other tournaments.
I decided to investigate this imbalance to see if there were any significant differences between how I bet on grand slams (featuring best-of-five set matches) and how I bet on ATP 250, ATP 500, and Masters 1000 tournaments (featuring best-of-three set matches).
Is there some kind of bias, making it more difficult to be successful when betting on the outliers in the grand slams? Is there any reason why my underdog selections perform worse in the grand slams than in the other tournaments?
To make this analysis, I gathered the Pinnacle closing prices of all the main-draw matches played since 2013.
After cleaning the data due to incorrect and missing odds and taking out withdrawals and retirements when the first set was not completed, I came up with a total of 4,885 fixtures in grand slams and 19,356 fixtures in non-grand slam events. Challengers, ITF matches, and Davis Cup games were excluded.
<h3>Grand slams</h3>
Should you have bet blindly with a stake of one unit on all the underdogs and all the favourites in grand slams, these would be the results you would have achieved:
<img src="/sites/default/files/media-image/grand-slams-10-year.png" alt="grand-slams-10-year.png" title width="300" height="500" loading="lazy"> If you had backed all of the favourites over the last 10 years, you would have finished virtually flat (-2.5 units), with a -0.05% yield. On the contrary, should you have bet on all the underdogs, the loss would have been remarkable, -680 units and a -13.92% yield.
<h3>Non-grand slam events</h3>
I also conducted the same exercise for all the ATP 250, ATP 500, and Masters 1000 matches, with the following outcome:
<img src="/sites/default/files/media-image/non-grand-slams.png" alt="non-grand-slams.png" title width="300" height="500" loading="lazy"> You would have lost 571.6 units (-2.95% yield) if you had bet on all of the favourites and -533.3 units ( -2.76% yield) if you had backed all of the underdogs.
<h3>Analysis of the results</h3>
At first sight, we can extract the clear conclusion that betting on the underdogs in grand slams is a disaster.
The first reason that comes to my mind to explain such a difference is the favourite-longshot bias. The favourite-longshot bias is the tendency to undervalue favourites and overvalue “longshots” in sports betting.
<div class="articleV2 unordered-list">
<ul>
<li><a style="color: #f50;" id="articleLink" href="https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-strategy/explaining-favourite-longshot-bias" target="_blank">Read: What is the favourite-longshot bias?</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
On average, the odds offered by the bookmakers at the higher prices have a higher margin and vice versa.
Moreover, from certain levels, the higher the odds the higher the margin. This means that, for a bettor, the likelihood of winning when betting on longshots is lower, as a bigger margin for the bookmaker translates into a lower expected yield.
However, why can’t we see such a gap when analysing the results of underdogs and favourites in the non-grand slam matches? In fact, in non-grand slam matches, the difference between backing the favourites and backing the underdogs was tiny, a -2.95% vs. a -2.76% yield.
In order to have more information, I have specifically analysed the favourite-longshot bias in both sets of data.
I have divided the dataset of grand slam fixtures into five groups of 977 bets, ordered by odds. Furthermore, I have taken the same odds ranges to form five groups of bets for the non-grand slam fixtures.
This way, we can compare both groups. Although the sample size is nearly four times higher for non-grand slams (NGS), we can see clearly that the favourite-longshot bias is more pronounced in grand slams (GS).
In the first range of the highest-priced players (8.710 to 81.000), we’ve got a -33.6% yield in GS vs. a -2.0% in NGS. Within this group, the number of bets is relatively low (874 in NGS) and only a few longshots can change the overall picture. This -2.0% yield in non-grand slam matches will likely be more negative as the sample size increases.
However, the difference with the grand slams group, where the yield is -33.6%, is too wide.
A low sample size is clearly not the only factor that can explain the difference. Apart from that, we can see that, for every range, the negative yield is higher in the grand slam matches.
Also, the magnitude of the differences is so high in some ranges that there is no need to make any statistically significant tests to address the issue of the different sample sizes.
<img src="/sites/default/files/media-image/gs-vs-non-gs.png" alt="gs-vs-non-gs.png" title width="300" height="600" loading="lazy"> Up to now, we already knew that betting on the underdogs during grand slams (-13.92%) was a worse idea than betting on the underdogs in the non-grand slams (-2.76%).
<blockquote>Favourite-longshot bias is higher during grand slams</blockquote>
But now we also know that the favourite-longshot bias is much higher during grand slams than in the non-grand slams.
For all of the ranges, if you had bet on the underdogs you would have obtained worse results. And this difference is the largest at the highest prices.
This is the same as saying that bookmakers apply, for the same level of odds, higher margins in the longshots of grand slams than in the longshots of non-grand slams. Why is there a difference?
If they take their decision based on risk aversion and price the underdogs disproportionately shorter relative to their fair prices than the favourites, why are they more risk averse in grand slams than in non-grand slams?
Could it be that, when grand slams are played, there is a higher number and proportion of recreational bettors who don’t bet on other tournaments and who are more prone to betting on the longshots?
Could it be that, to cope with this increased risk, some bookmakers might decide to apply higher margins on the longshots, knowing that these bettors are not very sensible when it comes to high prices?
That is, they don’t care much if the price is 16.000 or 13.000, as their demand elasticity with respect to underdogs is very low. Could it also be that punters are not fully assessing the influence of the “best-of-five sets” factor, where the underdogs are far less likely to win?
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
In summary, if you are betting on the grand slams, I suggest you choose your underdogs wisely. The odds are totally against you.
<blockquote>Choose your underdogs wisely...</blockquote>
Moreover, the higher the price, the greater the bookmaker margin will often be and, therefore, you’ll be less likely to find bets with positive Expected Value. This is the favourite-longshot bias and is, therefore, applicable to all sports and events.
However, we’ve seen that in tennis, it is much more prevalent in grand slam matches than in non-grand slam matches. It is more difficult to make money betting on the outliers in the grand slams than doing so in in the any other tournament.
We have speculated what might be behind this higher favourite-longshot bias in grand slams vs. non-grand slams.
Some of the reasons might be a lower demand elasticity to underdogs in grand slams than in non-grand slams by bettors, bettors not fully evaluating the impact of the best-of-five sets factor, and/or bookmakers being more risk averse on the longshots due to an increased risk.

Check out more tennis betting advice from Nishikori at <a href="https://twitter.com/nishikoripicks" target="_blank">@nishikoripicks</a>. Be sure to explore our <a href="https://www.pinnacle.com/en/">Betting Resources</a> hub for previews and predictions of the biggest tennis tournaments. <a href="https://bit.ly/3sbs8Ec" target="_blank">Sign up </a>at Pinnacle and experience great tennis odds with low margins.

View Latest Tennis Odds

Betting on grand slams vs. betting on non-grand slams. Analysis of an underdogs tennis bettor

Is it easier to back the favourite during a grand slam or is there exceptional value in backing longshots during non-grand slam events? Top Pinnacle tennis bettor Nishikori analyses the data and explores the value in betting on a longshot.

Betting on grand slams vs. betting on non-grand slams.

Are favourites more likely to win grand slam events in tennis? Why do longshots perform well in non-grand slam events? Seasoned Pinnacle bettor Nishikori analyses performance and the odds when betting on longshots in tennis.