When deciding how to bet, less detailed information may be better

May 13, 2013

People are worse at predicting whether a sports team will win, lose, or tie when they bet on the final score than when they bet on the overall outcome, according to a new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Examining sports betting data from both the real world and the lab, psychological scientist Kwanho Suk and colleagues at Korea University Business School found that people who relied on more detailed information were actually less accurate in their predictions about sports match outcomes.

These results stand in contrast to the that thoughtful deliberation improves decision-making:

"Our research suggests that predicting results—at least for sports matches—in a less deliberate way can actually improve prediction accuracy," explained Suk.

Analyzing 1.9 billion bets from Korea's largest sports-betting company from 2008 to 2010, Suk and colleagues found that people who bet on whether a soccer team would win or lose were better at predicting the overall outcome of the match than those who bet on the score.

They found the same pattern of results for betting on baseball games and the findings also held up in lab-based studies, in which Suk and colleagues assigned participants to make either win/lose/tie bets or score bets.

Data from the lab studies suggest that win/lose bettors are more accurate because they base their bets on general information about the sports teams, such as the teams' overall performance in recent years.

Incorporating more detailed information in their betting decisions—considering, for example, a team's defense, offense, and coaching ability—did not improve the accuracy of participants' predictions.

"In everyday life, people often try to be specific to be accurate," observe Suk and colleagues, but this new research suggests that specificity and accuracy don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

In weighing detailed information, we tend to give "greater weight to attributes that are more salient, justifiable, and easy to articulate," say the researchers. As a result, we often lose sight of more general attributes that actually matter.

While these studies provide considerable evidence for a "specificity bias" in sports betting, Suk and colleagues believe that the bias is likely to play a role in many areas, including business decisions.

Explore further: It's a sure thing: Knowledge of the game is not an advantage in sports gambling

Related Stories

'Clean' your memory to pick a winner, study says

April 22, 2013

Predicting the winner of a sporting event with accuracy close to that of a statistical computer program could be possible with proper training, according to researchers. In a study published today, experiment participants ...

Recommended for you

The birth of politics in children—the case of dominance

September 26, 2016

As they grow up, do children become young Robin Hoods? Depending on their age, they do not allocate resources in the same way between dominant and subordinate individuals. Thus a tendency towards egalitarianism develops and ...

Oxytocin enhances spirituality, new study says

September 21, 2016

Oxytocin has been dubbed the "love hormone" for its role promoting social bonding, altruism and more. Now new research from Duke University suggests the hormone may also support spirituality.

Study reveals a biological link between stress and obesity

September 21, 2016

Metabolic and anxiety-related disorders both pose a significant healthcare burden, and are in the spotlight of contemporary research and therapeutic efforts. Although intuitively we assume that these two phenomena overlap, ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2013
Another case of an "experiment" proving something other than what "science" insists it proves. The comparison of right/wrong bets based on whether a team wins compared to how much it wins by has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of knowledge of the team's past performance. Many bet just on the team, not its score, based on its detailed performance. What was tested for was how accurate bets will be in binary decision situations and in cases involving more complicated results. If you bet on a coin toss being heads or tails, your bet, according to conventional probability, should yield more successes then betting on whether the head is 0 degrees from true north, 1 degree, 2 degrees, and so on. A test with a greater number of potential results tends not to be as easily predicted as one with, say, only two.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.