Machine learning for sports betting: should model selection be based on accuracy or calibration?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.06021v4
• Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:45:42 GMT
• Title: Machine learning for sports betting: should model selection be based on accuracy or calibration?
• Authors: Conor Walsh, Alok Joshi
• Abstract summary: We train models on NBA data over several seasons and run betting experiments on a single season. We show that using calibration, rather than accuracy, as the basis for model selection leads to greater returns.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Sports betting's recent federal legalisation in the USA coincides with the golden age of machine learning. If bettors can leverage data to reliably predict the probability of an outcome, they can recognise when the bookmaker's odds are in their favour. As sports betting is a multi-billion dollar industry in the USA alone, identifying such opportunities could be extremely lucrative. Many researchers have applied machine learning to the sports outcome prediction problem, generally using accuracy to evaluate the performance of predictive models. We hypothesise that for the sports betting problem, model calibration is more important than accuracy. To test this hypothesis, we train models on NBA data over several seasons and run betting experiments on a single season, using published odds. We show that using calibration, rather than accuracy, as the basis for model selection leads to greater returns, on average (return on investment of $+34.69\%$ versus $-35.17\%$) and in the best case ($+36.93\%$ versus $+5.56\%$). These findings suggest that for sports betting (or any probabilistic decision-making problem), calibration is a more important metric than accuracy. Sports bettors who wish to increase profits should therefore select their predictive model based on calibration, rather than accuracy.

Related papers

• Boldness-Recalibration for Binary Event Predictions [0.0]
  Ideally, probability predictions are (i) well calibrated, (ii) accurate, and (iii) bold, i.e., spread out enough to be informative for decision making. There is a fundamental tension between calibration and boldness, since calibration metrics can be high when predictions are overly cautious, i.e., non-bold. The purpose of this work is to develop a Bayesian model selection-based approach to assess calibration, and a strategy for boldness-recalibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T18:14:47Z)
• Betting the system: Using lineups to predict football scores [0.0]
  This paper aims to reduce randomness in football by analysing the role of lineups in final scores. Football clubs invest millions of dollars on lineups and knowing how individual statistics translate to better outcomes can optimise investments. Sports betting is growing exponentially and being able to predict the future is profitable and desirable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-12T15:47:42Z)
• GCN-WP -- Semi-Supervised Graph Convolutional Networks for Win Prediction in Esports [84.55775845090542]
  We propose a semi-supervised win prediction model for esports based on graph convolutional networks. GCN-WP integrates over 30 features about the match and players and employs graph convolution to classify games based on their neighborhood. Our model achieves state-of-the-art prediction accuracy when compared to machine learning or skill rating models for LoL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-26T21:38:07Z)
• T-Cal: An optimal test for the calibration of predictive models [49.11538724574202]
  We consider detecting mis-calibration of predictive models using a finite validation dataset as a hypothesis testing problem. detecting mis-calibration is only possible when the conditional probabilities of the classes are sufficiently smooth functions of the predictions. We propose T-Cal, a minimax test for calibration based on a de-biased plug-in estimator of the $ell$-Expected Error (ECE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T16:58:54Z)
• Online Optimization with Untrusted Predictions [7.895232155155041]
  We study the problem of online optimization, where a decision maker must choose points in a general metric space to the sum of per-round, non-competitive hitting costs and the costs of switching between rounds. We propose a novel algorithm, Adaptive Online Switching (AOS), and prove that, for any desired $delta 0)$competitive if predictions are perfect, it is $tildecalO(alphadelta)$ even when predictions are inaccurate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-07T21:08:02Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)
• Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding [79.6985576698597]
  The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. Largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-07T17:59:25Z)
• Interpretable Real-Time Win Prediction for Honor of Kings, a Popular Mobile MOBA Esport [51.20042288437171]
  We propose a Two-Stage Spatial-Temporal Network (TSSTN) that can provide accurate real-time win predictions. Experiment results and applications in real-world live streaming scenarios showed that the proposed TSSTN model is effective both in prediction accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-14T12:00:58Z)
• Using Experts' Opinions in Machine Learning Tasks [0.0]
  We propose a general three-step framework for utilizing experts' insights in machine learning tasks. For the case study, we have chosen the task of predicting NCAA Men's Basketball games, which has been the focus of a group of Kaggle competitions. Results suggest that the good performance and high scores of the past models are a result of chance, and not because of a good-performing and stable model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-10T15:48:49Z)
• Individual Calibration with Randomized Forecasting [116.2086707626651]
  We show that calibration for individual samples is possible in the regression setup if the predictions are randomized. We design a training objective to enforce individual calibration and use it to train randomized regression functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T05:53:10Z)
• Descriptive and Predictive Analysis of Euroleague Basketball Games and the Wisdom of Basketball Crowds [0.0]
  This study focuses on the prediction of basketball games in the Euroleague competition using machine learning modelling. We find that simple machine learning models give accuracy not greater than 67% on the test set, worse than some sophisticated benchmark models. We argue why the accuracy level of this group of "experts" should be set as the benchmark for future studies in the prediction of (European) basketball games using machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T22:04:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.