Peer-reviewed studies, preprints and classic methods papers on pricing, efficiency, risk and research practice. Each entry is our summary, with the original link and a plain statement of what the study does not show.
Summaries are original paraphrases of published abstracts and records; no paper text is reproduced. Bibliographic details were checked against publisher, index and author listings on 25 October 2026. Where a paper was later corrected, the correction is shown. Preprints are labelled as not peer reviewed.
6 sources
To a first approximation, wagering prices are efficient forecasts of outcomes and absorb information as lines move, while documented exceptions such as the favourite–longshot bias remain important.
Does not show: That every market or price is efficient, or that the anomalies it lists can be exploited today.
Probabilities from Shin's model were more accurate than basic normalisation or regression in the samples studied; bookmakers differed as sources of probability, and exchange prices were not always the best source, especially in smaller markets.
Does not show: That any de-vig method recovers the true probability, or that de-vigged prices reveal profitable bets.
Sportsbook forecasts were mostly reliable, yet line changes were negatively autocorrelated (overreaction), forecast quality did not always improve toward game time, and simple strategies would have earned significant hypothetical profits.
Does not show: That football markets behave the same way, or that the hypothetical strategies were executable at scale.
A bookmaker protecting against insiders sets odds that produce a favourite–longshot bias; the model underlies the Shin de-vig method.
Does not show: How much insider trading exists in a given market.
Provides the estimation approach later used to convert odds into probabilities under Shin's model.
Does not show: That Shin probabilities are always the most accurate.
The power method outperformed normalisation on all three datasets and was comparable to or better than Shin, while always producing valid probabilities.
Does not show: That one method is best for every football market.
