Sports Bettors: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports betting is associated with problematic gambling behaviours. However, little is known about the profile of sports bettors. Also, it is still unclear if there are useful abilities in sports betting. This systematic review aims to describe gambling habits and cognitions of sports bettors, and determine the roles of chance and skill in sports betting. Addressing the chance and skill distinction in sports betting would be helpful to identify which of sports bettors' cognitions are erroneous. Out of 991 studies identified in the databanks, 31 met the inclusion criteria of this review. Results indicate that these studies are mostly conducted with male samples aged from 30 to 50 years. These gamblers bet many times per week, with weekly averages ranging from 100 to 200$ CAD. Five studies examined the roles of chance and skill in sports betting, among which three showed that sports bettors perform better than chance in predicting results accurately, but they do not win more money than they would with a random selection, due to the structure of the game. The 11 studies that focused on cognitions indicate that sports bettors overestimate the influence of skill on the outcome of the game. These results support the need to further study the role of cognitions in the behaviours of sports bettors. It also offers insights concerning the distinction between chance and skill in sports betting.RésuméLes paris sportifs sont associés à des comportements de jeu problématiques. Cependant, on sait peu de choses sur le profil des parieurs sportifs. De plus, il est difficile de statuer si certaines habiletés seraient utiles dans les paris sportifs. Cette revue systématique vise à décrire les habitudes de jeu, les cognitions des parieurs sportifs, et à déterminer le rôle du hasard et des habiletés dans ces paris. Examiner la distinction entre le hasard et les habiletés aux paris sportifs serait utile afin de déterminer quelles cognitions entretenues par les parieurs sportifs sont erronées . Sur 991 études repérées dans les banques de données, 31 répondaient aux critères d’inclusion de cette revue. Les résultats indiquent que ces études sont principalement menées auprès d’échantillons masculins âgés de 30 à 50 ans. Ces joueurs parient plusieurs fois par semaine et misent en moyenne de 100 $ à 200 $ CA par semaine. Cinq études ont examiné les rôles du hasard et des habiletés dans les paris sportifs, parmi lesquels trois ont montré que les parieurs sportifs prédisent mieux les résultats sportifs que le hasard, mais ils ne gagnent pas plus d’argent qu’avec une sélection aléatoire, en raison de la structure du jeu. Les onze études portant sur les cognitions indiquent que les parieurs sportifs surestiment l’influence des habiletés sur l’issue du jeu. Ces résultats confirment la nécessité d’approfondir le rôle des cognitions dans les comportements des parieurs sportifs. Ils donnent également des pistes sur la distinction entre le hasard et les habiletés dans les paris sportifs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".