| Most people are convinced that betting cannot | | | | wins the game, we receive 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 $. Same |
| earn profits to gambler in long-term perspective. | | | | happens if our stake on Federer and he wins: 3 x |
| It’s obvious even for those who are a great | | | | 1.5 = 4.5 $. |
| experts of statistics and probability theory. The | | | | Untill now it’s pretty clear how betting |
| only simple rationale here is: If bookmaker | | | | system works. Now let’s assume, that there |
| organizations exist, it means that they earn | | | | is anohter bookmaker Company B, let’s say. |
| money from this business, and if they manage to | | | | This company thinks that Nadal’s chances are |
| earn then gamblers are supposed to spend. | | | | better so their odds for Nadal vs Federer are |
| However this could be an absolute true if there | | | | following: |
| would be only 1 bookmaker around the world. But | | | | Nadal to win 2.00 – Federer to win 1.727 |
| its not like that and nowadays we have a | | | | Now all you need is to place 2 different bets with |
| hundreds of internationally recognized | | | | each of these bookmakers: |
| bookmakers. | | | | 1. 40$ on Nadal’s win with Company A (2.50) |
| To see how it could be possible to earn risk-free | | | | 2. 57.9$ on Federer’s win with Company B |
| money from betting, let’s look first at how | | | | (1.727) |
| betting works in general. Let’s say we have a | | | | Whoever wins the game your winnings will equal |
| following tennis match tonight: | | | | to 100$. However total spending was only 97.9$. |
| Nadal vs. Federer | | | | So in this case you earn 2.1$ of risk-free profit. |
| Bookmaker company A gives the following odds | | | | This method of betting is called arbitrage betting |
| for this match: | | | | and opportunities like above described are called |
| Nadal to win 2.50 – Federer to win 1.50 | | | | "arbs". |
| It means that if we stake on Nadal 3 $ and Nadal | | | | |