what you see depends on where you are standing

First Impressions



Specials BBC Jobs Best-Price
1 Richard Sharp To Resign 76%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Source: Stream Snipers.

On Having The Last Word


To believe something is to believe that it is true. So in theory, a trader when he places a trade, believes that all of his beliefs about the possibility of a forthcoming event outcome are true - otherwise why would he bother to trade? But through experience he knows full well that some of the beliefs that he currently holds to be true, will in fact be wrong (he is after all almost always trading on the back of incomplete information). So we are presented with a situation whereby a so-called rational trader believes that every one of his/her beliefs are true, whilst knowing that some of them are going to be proven to be false. That is the paradox - belief is actually nothing more than an experiment in knowledge acquisition. New information should always lead one to update ones beliefs, (perspectives should always be able to be changed when new information becomes available) - but this is far from being the case. People are essentially resistant to countervailing evidence: and indeed the backfire effect reveals that people will actually actively double down on their belief (or set of beliefs) when presented with contradictory evidence. Because most people are obsessed with having the last word they are resistant and unwilling to entertain other possibilities. Their back of a fag packet systems always exclude something, but what if what they have excluded was the most important piece of the jigsaw?

To inhabit a betting market is to be embedded in an interpersonal field in which we are in continual interaction with other people, some of whom we affect, many of whom affect us and some of whom affect each other. (Given that the full panoply of causes in play that are interacting and affecting the prices in any liquid betting market system is enormous, how is it, that we, as putative discoverers of the truth, set about selecting the causes that we take to be relevant to our final explanations.) There is an argument to be made that rational traders in betting exchange markets should not place bets with each other; the fact that another trader is willing to take the opposite side of my trade should suggest to me that this investor knows something I do not know.

In a betting exchange market, where liquidity is abundant, decision making is a difficult task. Traders are trapped in a network of relationships, surrounded by a sea of volatility. The information they receive is dispersed and arrives in a random order, creating an atmosphere of confusion. The uncertainty, ambiguity, and asymmetry of information, along with the temporal decay, variability, and excessive noise, creates an endless pattern of interpersonal interactions and almost always contributes to decisions that are sub-optimal.

What is needed for optimal decision making is clarity and consistency, yet traders are forced to attach significance to a multiplicity of conflicting cues. Analysis is nothing more than a retrospective construction and there is always the possibility that our views are biased by past experiences. We cling to our beliefs in an attempt to make sense of the unpredictable, but in doing so we fail to update them when confronted with new information and accordingly we risk losing sight of the true nature of things.

In this tenebrous world, we are faced with the absurd task of having to make fast decisions, whilst constantly aware of the extent of our own limitations and the inherent uncertainty of our actions. But it is in embracing this absurdity that we can find the freedom to make the bold choices that will actually make a difference.



Second Thoughts


The table below clearly reveals that gambling stocks are no longer the safe haven that they once were. Investors in 888, for example, do not need to be reminded that they have lost 79% of their investment in the past year. In the longer term the only people who ever make money trading are are those that trade whilst overall market conditions are still unfavorable. Each of these gambling stocks has associated with it idiosyncratic growth stories that are currently being ignored amidst the broader market turmoil and accordingly there is a good case to be made that this morning would be a good point to dip ones toe into the water. Flutter's revenues in the US, for example, account for a third of its global betting business and they are projected to account for half before long and the company will be seen as cheap by any overseas buyer given the recent slide in sterling. A US listing for FanDuel is still not out of the question. Looking ahead: the impact of the World Cup; the strong USD and softer comparatives going into 2023 lend support to our belief that at the current levels these stocks are trading significatly below their true value.

888 is the one company amongst the trio that is not currently in a good place ; Q3 revenue of £449m, a decline of -7% year over year, Total online revenue of £325m, down 10% year over year, principally reflecting the impact of UK player safety measures. Total UK online revenue of £171m, down 13% year over year driven by a reduction in average spend per player, which was down 14% year over year. The company also has a noose around its neck - in the shape of the significant debt that it accrued following its acquisition of William Hill.

We shall return to the price action at the start of next year to see where the market is pricing these stocks. To obtain the real time price please click on current price below.

UPDATE: 23/01/2023. Substantial gains recorded.





Companies 2018 Year High Current Price Change (%)
Entain 2222 1050 -50%
Flutter Entertainment 15475 9900 -36%
888 447 85 -85%

Prices as of the morning of 29/09/2022. LSE.



Crypto Betting Markets


Augur the crypto prediction market currency is trading at around the $6 mark. Augur reached a two year high of $52 on April 17 2021. Augur is powered by Ethereum, which as we have pointed out for the past ten years is in very real danger of attracting the attention of SEC vis a vis the legal status of ether.


Company Current Valuation
Augur $4

Subject: Prediction Market Crypto/Augur Prediction Markets.

Models in Betting Markets


Models are the cornerstone of strategic decision making in betting and financial markets. But it's important to remember that these models are representations of reality, not reality itself. Understanding which models and idealizations are appropriate for the task at hand and which aren't is critical for success. Additionally, over-reliance on statistics-based models can lead to flawed conclusions and significant bouts of over-confidence..it is funny how often the model gets it wrong just as the bet size is growing.

The construction of a model is always a choice of which observations to include and which ones to exclude, and these choices reflect the underlying motivations of the modeller, which are often unconscious. It is important to be aware of these motivations and the potential biases that are likely to be at work.. All models, including risk models, have limitations, and it's important to be aware of these limitations. However, when faced with unexpected events, models can break down, and the temptation to cling to them due to an intolerance of failure and alternative perspectives can be detrimental.

Models are highly sensitive to our subjective prior assumptions, which are inevitably tainted by noise. As traders in financial and betting markets, it's crucial to avoid crude approximations, to focus on what's truly important, and to remain humble in our analysis rather than becoming overconfident. We must also be vigilant in identifying and mitigating any unconscious biases that may influence our analysis. The most effective model is one that accounts for the available data in the most parsimonious way. However, it's important to remember that no model can fully capture reality or truth. Models are tools, windows into the data, and the inferences we make from them are always subjective. As traders operating in financial and betting markets, it is imperative that we use models judiciously, understanding their limitations and the presuppositions and biases of their designers. In the end of the day, like it or not, the truth will always exist beyond the scope of the model.

The construction of statistical models involves a number of subjective elements, such as the choice of hypotheses, model assumptions, and prior distributions for model parameters. These choices can have a significant impact on the output of the model, as changes in the prior distribution can lead to changes in the likelihood ratio or the distribution of model parameters. This is known as sensitivity analysis.

It is important to note that our models are often viewed as extensions of ourselves, and the model we construct is always the one that we consider to be the best. However, this requires a sophisticated understanding of which models and idealizations are adequate for the reality they are trying to describe, and which are irrelevant or misleading. Additionally, we should be aware that models are often constructed by making distinctions and choices about which observations to include, and these choices may be unconsciously motivated, or indeed (as so often the case) just plain wrong.

Risk models can be effective in predicting certain outcomes, but they can be unreliable when unexpected events occur, and the correlations they rely on can break down. An overconfidence in models can lead to an unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives, which can result in retaining the model for far longer than is warranted. The construction of models is also subject to biases based on expectation or self-interest, and they are often highly sensitive to subjective prior assumptions.

The best model is the one that accounts for the available data in the most parsimonious way, but all models are ultimately limited by the information available at the time of construction. Models should be seen as convenient windows through which we can view and make inferences about the data at hand, but these inferences are always subjective and can be influenced by emotionally charged biases. Additionally, it is important to note that models do not attempt to explain real-world behavior, they only attempt to explain model behavior, and they are never truly representative of reality. Models depend on the presuppositions of their designers and reflect their biases. They can assist us in the discovery process, and allow us to understand patterns and to make predictions, but we should always remember that the truth almost always eludes and lies outside of the model. Models are always based on past observations and thus are unable to capture the new and unexpected - the truths that exist outside of the current state of affairs.

In Nuce, our understanding of the world is based on a set of assumptions and expectations that are derived from past experiences and data, and these assumptions and expectations form the basis of our statistical models. However, these models are based on the assumption that the world is stable and predictable, and as a result, they are not able to account for the emergence of new truths that fundamentally disrupt and transform our understanding of the world.

In situations where models are used to inform decisions that affect many people, it is important to have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the models are being used appropriately and that the potential risks and limitations are being considered. This may include involving multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process, performing sensitivity analyses to understand the model's uncertainty, and regularly reviewing and updating the model.

Ultimately, it is important to recognize that models are only one part of the decision-making process, and that they should be used in conjunction with other forms of analysis and information. It is also important to have a clear understanding of the potential risks and limitations associated with any model, and to be transparent about these when presenting or using the model.



Betting Exchange Trading


The liquid betting exchange market presents a challenging and ever-changing environment, characterized by a high degree of noise and volatility. It is a place where individuals with compromised cognitive abilities and deficiencies in rational thinking are prone to becoming emotionally overwhelmed in response to unexpected price movements. Trading in such an environment can be likened to navigating a dense forest with nothing but a torn map, exposing a range of cognitive biases and limitations.

Firstly, to trade, one must engage with a price, but the question remains - what information does that price contain at any given moment? Secondly, to commit to a trade, one must either rely on their own beliefs or those of others, both of which pose inherent dangers. Given the limited time and financial resources, individuals often fail to thoroughly examine the available data and instead resort to using mental shortcuts and relying on learned behaviors, which are themselves suspect due to errors in memory retrieval and interpretation bias.

Information processing errors are prevalent in this environment, as individuals tend to reinforce their core beliefs, even if they are not always correct. They unconsciously seek out confirmatory evidence while quickly discarding, ignoring and distorting disconfirmatory evidence. Furthermore, awareness, goals, desires, motivations and judgments are shaped by prior beliefs inferred from past experiences, leading to the brain picking patterns out of the environment based on familiarity and salience.

In summary, the liquid betting exchange market is a complex and ever-changing landscape, where cognitive biases and limitations are prevalent and strong emotions drive attentional focus and contribute to motivated reasoning. It requires a deep understanding of one's own cognitive biases, as well as a rigorous examination of the available data, to navigate successfully.



On Belief


Belief is an untotalizable multiplicity that can be influenced by many different factors, including cultural context, unconscious forces, bio-cultural adaptation, and fears. Therefore, it would be an oversimplification to suggest that beliefs can be explained solely by one perspective or theory; the inherent limitations of trying to impose finitude on a subject that is inherently complex and multifaceted. Beliefs are also often a consequence of accepting evidence at hand and equally a product of fear and unconsciously motivated. People find themselves in situations where they must believe something.

Our beliefs, experiences, and past associations shape our awareness, goals, desires, motivations, and judgements. The brain picks patterns out of the environment based on familiarity and assigns them a level of importance. However, ordinary perception is never purely simple as it is filtered through past experiences and contains ideal elements. Strong emotions also drive attentional focus and contribute to motivated reasoning.

However, our associative memory is not always reliable, and this can lead to aberrant salience attribution, the attachment of meaning to things that are not worthy of our attention. This underlying deficit in relevance detection causes noise to be integrated into the decision-making process, reducing decision accuracy. In summary, our beliefs, emotions, and past experiences shape our perception and decision-making, but it is important to be aware of the potential for errors in our associative memory and to question the salience attributed to certain information.

It is true to some extent that our associations are hardwired, but that does not mean our associative memory is always accurate or reliable. Our brain's tendency to make connections between seemingly unrelated events or information is called "associative memory." This memory process can lead to aberrant salience attribution, where we attach meaning to things that may not be important or relevant. This can result in noise being integrated into our decision-making process, thereby reducing accuracy.

It is also true that we have a tendency to hold onto our beliefs, even when they are challenged or proven to be incorrect. This is partly due to an unconscious disinclination to be proved wrong, and it can make it difficult for us to "defamiliarize" or "deconstruct" our thinking. The brain has a natural tendency to look for patterns and connections, but this can also lead to confirmation bias, where we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. This can make it difficult to change our minds or consider alternative perspectives.



On Hubris


Hubris, or excessive pride and self-confidence, can be difficult for people to handle for several psychological reasons.

Firstly, hubris can lead to overconfidence, where individuals overestimate their abilities and knowledge. This can lead to a lack of humility and a failure to acknowledge the limits of one's own abilities, leading to poor decision making.

Secondly, hubris can lead to a bias called the "illusion of control," where individuals believe they have more control over events than they actually do. This can lead to a failure to account for randomness and luck in decision making, and can also lead to overconfidence in one's ability to predict future outcomes.

Thirdly, hubris can also lead to a lack of self-awareness and an inability to recognize and correct one's own errors. This can lead to an over-reliance on past success and a failure to adapt to changing circumstances.

Lastly, hubris can lead to a lack of risk management, as the individual may believe they can control the outcome of the situation and may make impulsive decisions without considering the potential consequences.

All these conditions can lead to poor decision making and can be the downfall of even the most successful gamblers and financial market traders. Hubris can make individuals more susceptible to cognitive biases and can lead to a failure to adapt to changing circumstances, which can ultimately result in losses and financial ruin.



On Confirmation Bias


Cognitive limitations impede individuals' ability to adapt their beliefs in light of contradictory evidence, even if the evidence is of a compelling nature. These limitations include the tendency to engage in emotionally-motivated reasoning, the desire to preserve one's self-esteem and sense of self by avoiding the admission of error, confirmation bias, the tendency to favor one's own position, the belief that one's own perspective is objective and unbiased, and the inability to recognize one's own biases. These factors contribute to a phenomenon known as "entrenchment" in which individuals become more deeply committed to their existing beliefs.

The process by which individuals encounter and incorporate new evidence is multifaceted and encompasses various levels of cognitive and behavioral functioning. Essentially, individuals possess a natural inclination towards reducing uncertainty and tend to favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to information that challenges or contradicts them. Furthermore, individuals tend to exhibit a preference for being in agreement with their social group, as it provides a sense of security and validation. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as "confirmation bias" and "herding behavior" respectively.



Postmodern Betting Markets


From a postmodern standpoint, knowledge is but a simulacrum, a construct forged by the prism of individual perspective and bias. The notion of knowledge as objective truth is a grand illusion, a constantly mutable and subjective rendering of reality. The concept of "probabilistic ellipsis" suggests that our comprehension of the world is a mere fraction, an incomplete and uncertain fragment of the actuality that surrounds us. The knowledge we purport to possess is but a phantasm, a transient shadow of reality that can never fully encapsulate the intricacies and multiplicities of the world.

This understanding allows us to deconstruct the framework imposed by the bookmaker on a betting market event as a fluid and incessantly shifting construct, the boundaries of which are mere chimeras. The forces of contingency, the unfathomable exterior to the frame, infiltrates and subverts the purported equilibrium of the frame. The framework is thus an interactive, emergent process, endlessly reproduced through the performative actions of the participants as they engage in a reflexive process of signification.

It is through the act of identification with the betting market price that individuals construct meaning from their experiences. The internalization of knowledge about the betting market price is a fluid process, a fleeting decoding of information that is forever in a state of flux. The significance, relevance, and generalizability of this information are but a mirage, forever evasive to those who seek to comprehend it. Nonetheless, people continue to see things in the prices and the price action that are actually simply meaningless noise



Decision Making Under Uncertainty


Decision making under conditions of uncertainty is a multifaceted and complex process that is influenced by a diverse array of cognitive, emotional, and environmental factors. Research in fields such as behavioral economics, psychology and cognitive science have repeatedly demonstrated that human decision making is subject to a variety of biases, heuristics and cognitive limitations, which can lead to suboptimal choices.

One of the most well-established concept in this field is the notion of bounded rationality, first introduced by Herbert Simon in the 1950s, which highlights the fact that human decision-making is constrained by a variety of factors such as time, cognitive capacity, and availability of information. This means that even when individuals have access to all the relevant information, they may not be able to fully process or consider it all, leading to suboptimal decisions.

Furthermore, social and psychological factors such as emotions, motivations, and the context in which the decision is being made, can also play a crucial role in shaping our choices. For example, the influence of emotions on decision-making is well-documented and can lead to irrational choices. Similarly, the way people draw distinctions and the social and cultural environment in which the decision is being made can also have a significant impact on the choices that we make.

Given these complexities, it is imperative that traders in financial and betting markets are aware of the various forces that can influence their choices and actively work to mitigate their impact, for instance through training in decision-making techniques, seeking the input of diverse perspectives, and utilizing decision-making tools and frameworks that take into account the limitations of human cognition:

Confirmation bias: the tendency to look for information that confirms one's preconceptions or hypotheses while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them.

Anchoring bias: the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.

Overconfidence: the belief that one's own abilities or predictions are more accurate than they actually are (and accordingly discounting the fact that others may know more than we do)..

Loss aversion: the tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains.

Herding: the tendency to follow the actions or decisions of others without considering one's own independent judgment.

Representativeness bias: the tendency to make judgments based on how similar a situation or person is to a prototype or stereotype, rather than considering all relevant information.

Hindsight bias: the tendency to see past events as having been predictable or obvious after the fact.

Gambler's fallacy: the belief that random events are influenced by past events, and that a streak of luck or misfortune will soon come to an end.

Self-serving bias: the tendency to attribute one's own successes to personal factors while attributing failures to external factors.

Emotion-driven decisions: the tendency to let emotions, such as fear or greed, drive decisions rather than rational analysis.



Probabilities and Beliefs


Probabilities and beliefs are both means by which individuals attempt to navigate the inherent uncertainty and complexity of reality. Probabilities are a quantification of the rational degree of belief that a person holds under a given set of circumstances, reflecting the level of certainty that a reasonably intelligent person can attain in light of the available information. They serve as an epistemic anchor, providing a framework for understanding and making decisions in the face of ontological complexity. Similarly, beliefs are also a means of trying to make sense of the world, and they reflect the individual's perception of reality, which is also influenced by the available information and their cognitive limitations.

It's important to note that probabilities and beliefs are not absolute truths, but rather approximations of reality that can be influenced by cognitive biases, heuristics and limited information. Furthermore, it's important to consider that the concept of probability itself is a construct that is based on certain assumptions and axioms, it doesn't reflect the true underlying probability of an event happening but rather a measure of the degree of belief in an event happening, in the light of the currently available information and the way in which we choose to manage it.

In summary, Probabilities and beliefs are epistemic tools that individuals use to navigate the complexities of reality, and they reflect the level of certainty that a reasonably intelligent person can attain under a given set of circumstances. It's important to keep in mind, however, that they are not absolute truths but rather approximations that can be influenced by cognitive biases and limited information.



The Dangers of What You Know


Human understanding is often biased and influenced by prior knowledge, leading to flawed decision-making and a lack of true objectivity. This is described as "exalting what we can know and prove" while ignoring or dismissing that which cannot be proven, as well as the tendency to "draw all things else to support and agree with it" rather than considering alternative perspectives. The concept of "bounded rationality" is also introduced, suggesting that decision-making is limited by various constraints such as time, energy and cost. Throw into the mix the fact that our moods have a big impact on our retrieval processeses; they are a cue for positive (negative) information stored in long-term memory. Mood-congruent memory causes the set of recalled information to be therefore biased.



20 Common Betting Errors


Overconfidence: Underestimating the level of uncertainty in the horse racing betting market and overestimating one's ability to predict the outcome of races. Failing to take proper account of contingency and chance, leading one to make impulsive and rash decisions

Anchoring: Being influenced by irrelevant information, such as a horse's past performance under different conditions or the opinion of so-called experts, when placing a bet. All traders may overreact to news, rumors or betting market conditions that happen to pertain at a particular moment in time.

Confirmation bias: Seeking out information that confirms one's preexisting beliefs and ignoring information that contradicts them. Believing that you are the wise guy in the room and discounting the fact that others (not least the person accepting your bet on the betting exchange) may know more than you do.

Representativeness: Assuming that past performance is indicative of future performance, despite explicit changes in the horse or the racing conditions.

Availability bias: Being overly influenced by recent events or easily accessible information when making a decision.

Loss aversion: Being overly risk-averse and unwilling to take risks in order to avoid potential losses.

Sunk cost fallacy: Continuing to invest in a losing bet because of the resources already invested, rather than cutting one's losses.

Psychological biases: such as hindsight bias and optimism bias which may lead to making bad decisions. Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to believe, after an event has occurred, that they would have predicted or expected the outcome. This bias can lead to an overestimation of one's ability to predict future events and can also contribute to a false sense of understanding of past events. On the other hand, optimism bias is the tendency for people to overestimate the likelihood of positive events happening to them and underestimate the likelihood of negative events. This bias can lead to a false sense of security and poor decision making. Together, these biases can lead to a dangerous combination of overconfidence and complacency when it comes to predicting future event outcomes.

Complexity: The horse racing betting market is complex and difficult to predict, making it hard for individuals to make informed decisions and to become guilty of misattributing causation. Price movements in betting markets are not caused by one factor alone, but rather by the complex interplay of various factors. The betting market price that pertains at any particular monet in time is the result of a wide range of information and sociological and psycholgical factors. This can include fundamental factors such as the recent form of the horses in the race, teh conditions of the race, weather conditions, horse, stable and jockey form, and public sentiment. Additionally, market sentiment, and the investment strategies of traders can also have an impact on betting market prices. It is important to note that the influence of each factor can vary and it can be difficult to predict how these factors will interact and impact the prices. This is why it is a common misperception among punters that price movements are caused by one factor alone. This can lead to an over-estimation of the importance of that single factor and an underestimation of the impact of other factors.

Incomplete information: having limited information about the horses, jockeys, race conditions and betting market signals can lead to poor decision making and the placing of bad bets.

Lack of discipline: Not following a consistent strategy or betting plan, leading one to be swayed by emotions and making impulsive trades.

Overvaluation of favorites: Assuming that the favorite horse in a race is more likely to win.

Overbetting: Placing too many bets or betting too much money on a single race.

Ignoring the betting market signals: Not paying attention to the odds offered by the bookmakers, which can provide valuable information about the likelihood of a horse winning. Not paying attention to the late breaking prices which contain 25% more information than earlier prices.

Not considering the conditions: Not taking into account the track conditions, weather, or other factors that can impact a horse's performance on the day.

Not studying form: Not researching the horses, jockeys, and trainers.

Not diversifying: Not spreading out bets among multiple horses or races.

Not managing risk: Not setting limits on how much to bet or how much to risk in a single race.

In the end analysis most people are just guilty of a laziness of thought that simply merges with the shifting play of opinions. Better to be wrong with the crowd than to be wrong on ones own and all of that.



Cognitive Styles


The human inclination to comprehend and exert control over one's surroundings is a fundamental aspect of cognitive functioning. However, the capacity to effectively monitor, interpret, evaluate, and regulate one's information processing systems is often hindered by inherent cognitive limitations. These limitations impede the ability to adopt a rational and critical perspective, which is essential for engaging in high levels of self-reflection and adaptability in the face of uncertainty. In its most extreme manifestation, these limitations manifest as a rigid cognitive stance characterized by a lack of curiosity, a resistance to engage with alternative hypotheses and counter-factual arguments and an inability to change ones mind.

In contrast, a broad and flexible cognitive organization enables individuals to recognize the subjectivity of their own mental representations, to grasp the extent to which they are attached to their core beliefs, and to actively question and evaluate these beliefs in the light of new information. It also allows for the ability to pause and reflect on the reasons behind one's responses and conclusions, and to integrate new information, even if it contradicts previously held beliefs, leading to a capacity for adaptability and change.



System 1 and System 2 thinking


The concept of System 1 and System 2 thinking, as proposed by Kahneman, suggests that there are two distinct modes of thinking: one that is fast, automatic, and intuitive (System 1), and another that is slow, deliberate, and analytical (System 2). However, the idea that individuals can become aware of all of their biases and heuristic mechanisms and can use System 2 thinking to override them, is too simplistic. Research in the field of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics has revealed that many of the biases and heuristic mechanisms that impact behaviour are triggered by unconscious forces, and are therefore not directly accessible to conscious awareness. Therefore, It is not possible for an individual to fully understand and overcome all of their biases and heuristic mechanisms, as some of them are the result of unconscious processes that are inaccesible.

Additionally, it is important to note that the distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking is not absolute and there is considerable overlap between the two systems. For example, some heuristics can be used deliberately, and some deliberate reasoning can be influenced by emotional states, hence undermining the dichotomy between the two systems. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the System 1 and System 2 thinking concept, and to adopt a more nuanced and holistic perspective when studying decision-making and its underlying cognitive and neural processes. It can be challenging to fully untangle the interrelated forces that are acting on prices in a live and highly liquid betting market. This is because the prices are determined by the collective actions and decisions of the participants, which can be influenced by a wide range of factors, such as their own biases, beliefs, past and present experiences. Additionally, the market is constantly changing, with new information and participants entering, making it difficult to fully understand the forces at play at any given moment in time.