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 Preprints are labelled as not peer reviewed.
4 sources
The authors report that the strategy was profitable in a historical simulation, in a simulation on more granular odds data and in a short real-money trial, and that bookmakers restricted their accounts during the trial.
Does not show: That cross-bookmaker discrepancies remain available or executable at meaningful stakes today.
Apparent inefficiencies appear in individual seasons but do not persist systematically across seasons or leagues, and simulations show that significant single-season results are likely even in a fully efficient market.
Does not show: That no bettor can ever find an edge; it shows that single-season evidence is weak.
Much of the original out-of-sample profit depended on a single outlier bet recorded at erroneously long odds; after correction only one strategy remained significantly profitable in the original period, returns came mainly from individual bookmakers' mispricing rather than the buzz signal, and there were no further profits in data after 2020.
Does not show: That attention-based signals never contain information; it shows this published profit was not robust.
Reported that attention-related signals were associated with mispricing and profitable strategies; later corrected by Clegg & Cartlidge.
Does not show: A durable profitable strategy, once the outlier bet is corrected.
