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

If you had bet on every underdog in the last 10 seasons, you would have ended up with a yield of -13.92% over 4,885 bets.
<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>
On the other hand, if you had bet on all the favorites, your yield would have been only slightly negative at -0.05%.
This data contrasts with that of the non-Grand Slam events (ATP 250, ATP 500 and Masters 1000 tournaments), where the favorites produced a -2.76% yield, and the underdogs a -2.95% yield, over a total of 19,356 bets.
We can also observe that the favorite-longshot bias is much more prevalent in Grand Slam matches than in non-Grand Slam matches, probably because bettors do not fully realize the impact of the ‘best of five sets factor’.
Now, I have taken it a step further and analyzed the results in each of the four Grand Slams. I have added 13 more years of data (from 2010 to 2022) to increase the sample size. The results from these 13 seasons can be found below. <img src="/sites/default/files/media-image/Tennis-table-1.jpg" alt="Tennis-table-1.jpg" title width="427" height="218" loading="lazy">
As you can see, betting on every favorite at Pinnacle’s closing odds would have generated a positive result, with a 0.1% yield over 6,522 bets.
The most positive results for the favorites - and the worst for the underdogs - would have been obtained on the clay of Paris, with a 2.0% yield over 1,631 bets if you bet on all the frontrunners, and a -22.0% yield if you had done the same for the outsiders.
The Australian Open (+0.8%) and Wimbledon (+0.7%) would have produced a positive and nearly identical performance for the favorites.
However, there is a difference of 10 percent for the underdogs (-20.7% vs -10.7%). You might think that this is an error, but it’s not.
We need to take into account that a few longshots can make the difference, even though the yield on the favorites is the same.
I have double-checked the results, and this is indeed what happened. Sergiy Stakhovsky beat Roger Federer in Wimbledon 2013 at 46.0; Lukáš Rosol beat Rafael Nadal in 2012 at 41.0; Steve Darcis beat Nadal in 2013 at 34.0, and Sam Querrey beat Novak Djokovic in 2016 at 31.3.
In&nbsp;Australia, the biggest upset was Denis Istomin beating Djokovic in 2017 at 26.22.
<div class="cta-container follow-pinnacle">
<h2>GET THE BEST TENNIS BETTING ADVICE</h2>
Bet on the French Open with Pinnacle
<a id="TwitterFollowCTA" class="button" href="https://twitter.com/PinnacleSports" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Follow Pinnacle </a></div>
Regarding the US Open, it has been undoubtedly the worst tournament for the favorites, with a -2.9% yield. Underdogs have “only” lost 5.6%. This is a remarkably low number considering:
1) the favorite-longshot bias with the average price of underdogs is 6.77, and
2) how poorly underdogs typically perform in Grand Slams. Indeed, they usually perform much worse than what this bias would suggest.
What is the reason behind the poor performance of the frontrunners in the US Open? It is a very difficult question to answer, but I will share my view.
I think that both the heat and humidity in New York, along with the fact that some players might be exhausted after a long season, may be factors that are not fully reflected in the odds.
Of course, this is only my personal and subjective view, and I have no proof to back up my claims.
Now let’s get back to Roland-Garros. How is it that you would have won 2% of what you bet if you had backed every favorite since 2010? Additionally, isn’t it shocking that you would have lost 22.0% of what you bet on the underdogs?
This huge difference of 24 points in a sample size of 1,631 bets cannot solely be explained by the favorite-long shot bias.
If we analyze the data year by year (126 matches), the following results emerge. <img src="/sites/default/files/media-image/tennis-table-2.jpg" alt="tennis-table-2.jpg" title width="414" height="326" loading="lazy">
In nine out of the 13 years, you would have profited by betting on the favorites. The worst year for the favorites was 2020, with a -7.4% yield. However, this was a very unusual year, where the tournament was played in October instead of June due to the pandemic.
What is the reason for the strong performance of the favorites at Roland-Garros? What else - apart from the ‘best of five sets factor’ - justifies it?
The reality is that the difference between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon or the Australian Open is not statistically significant from a numerical standpoint. A difference of 1.2-1.3 points in yield over 1,500-1,700 bets can be attributed to variance.
Therefore, we can definitively state that not only at Roland-Garros, but also in Australia and Wimbledon, the prices on the favorites are higher than they should be, and you are likely to make money if you bet on them.
The overall figure in these three tournaments is a 1.20% yield over 4,889 bets in the last 13 seasons.
<h3>Final thoughts</h3>
In summary, if you bet on the favorites at Roland-Garros, you are much more likely to win, while the opposite holds true for the underdogs.
A -22% yield since 2010 should not be overlooked. Of course, it’s possible to bet on every favorite at this year’s Roland-Garros and still lose, but the odds seem to be in your favor.
Looking at the data from all four Grand Slams, we can draw similar conclusions for the Australian Open and Wimbledon. The difference between Roland-Garros and the Australian Open or Wimbledon is not statistically significant.
Therefore, we cannot strongly assert that betting on favorites in Paris produces better results than in London or Melbourne.
What we can say is that these three tournaments exhibit a strong bias in favor of the favorites compared to the underdogs, which is much larger than what the favorite-longshot bias would suggest.
The reason is likely to be the ‘best of five sets factor’.
Overall, betting on favorites in these three Grand Slams since 2010 would have yielded a 1.20% return over 4,889 bets, while underdogs would have resulted in an 18.1% loss.
The US Open stands out as a unique tournament in this aspect. In New York, players face difficulties, possibly due to the weather conditions and the fact that the tournament is held towards the end of the season, when players may encounter more physical issues.
These specific factors might not be fully considered by bettors, and if they were, this could diminish the disparities between the favorites and the underdogs.
Check out the vast range of markets with low margin <a href="https://www.pinnacle.com/en/tennis/matchups" target="_blank">tennis odds at Pinnacle</a>. 
Learn how to take advantage of Pinnacle's outstandings odds with unique insights. 
<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" allow="autoplay" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/playlists/968480050&amp;color=%23ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;show_teaser=true"></iframe>
<div style="font-size: 10px; color: #cccccc; line-break: anywhere; word-break: normal; overflow: hidden; white-space: nowrap; text-overflow: ellipsis; font-family: Interstate,Lucida Grande,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Sans,Garuda,Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: 100;"><a href="https://soundcloud.com/pinnacle-podcast" title="Pinnacle Podcast" target="_blank" style="color: #cccccc; text-decoration: none;">Pinnacle Podcast</a> · <a href="https://soundcloud.com/pinnacle-podcast/sets/advantage-bettors" title="Advantage Bettors" target="_blank" style="color: #cccccc; text-decoration: none;">Advantage Bettors</a></div>

View Latest Tennis Odds

In my article “Betting on Grand Slams vs. betting on non-Grand Slams. Analysis of an underdogs tennis bettor”, I was able to prove that betting on the underdogs in Grand Slams is a not always the best decision.