1. Around 70% chances – Equilibrium theory
Extended limiting action will result in temporary arbitrage market crisis. Some of the bookmakers will not succeed in taking appropriate precautions against arbers/smart bettors and these will be acquired by stronger, more effective ones. More and more players will decide not to play arbitrage bets and move to other sectors/areas, preferably outside the gambling industry. This will result in decreased earnings for Arbitrage companies, and likely a few of them will stop functioning. Once it happens there will be general opinion that arbitrage-betting is no more profitable enough to start it. This will result in decreased requirement for traders who analyze accounts and limit them and will (on bookmakers side) also create space for introducing bonus action to attract new players (market’s competition for new bettors). It might happen, that these bonuses will have anti-arbing terms and conditions (like e.g Tobet’s one, where you have to play at least 3 games at one coupon, so that it counts to the turnover, however this is unlikely in a long run, while it discourages usual players, being too complicated). Reduced potential of arbitrage community and profitability of an entire sector should also result in establishment of new bookmakers, who would need to attract players with solid bonuses. In time it might happen, that the biggest bookmakers will increase their limits on major leagues to attract “big players” and also distinguish themselves from small companies which will, again, promote arbitrage actions.
2. Around 20% chances Pinnacle – Asians – Betting Exchanges theory
Community-based services have been more and more important, to name just Twitter’s or Facebook’s influence. First substantial attempt to bring sports betting into community-based service is called Smarkets and we will observe their efforts with attention. Hopefully their success will encourage new developers to create similar services, which will, in time, take over some part of gambling market. Working as betting exchanges, these portals will not limit their players, creating nice opportunities for arbitrage players. On the other side Arbitrage community needs decent success of these services to ensure appropriate liquidity for surebetting. Utilizing them along with usual betting-exchanges like Betfair and Pinnacle Sports could be just enough to keep the cash flowing.
3. Around 5% chances – Pinnacle Sports – Pinnacle Sports theory
Success of Pinnacle Sports is certainly repeatable. There are already few good services that try to imitate Pinnacle Sports approach to sports-betting such as Marathon, 188Bet or SBO. They all, however, do lack few things. Either liquidity – which forces them to limit players to have markets balanced or policy – e.g. 188Bet, or SBO have way bigger margins than Pinnacle Sports, thus making them much worse. Without a doubt if this worked for Pinnacle, it could work for another company. Once it finally happens (because I do not expect Pinnacle Sports to change attitude to “limiting one”) we will have two major, non-limiting, low-juice separate sportsbetting services. Fingers crossed!
4. Around 5% chances – Arbitrage-betting twilight
While “soft” services continue their limiting actions, there is impossible to effectively utilize them in a long run. Smarkets and other betting exchanges do not share success of casual services. While many arbitrage players end their careers Pinnacle Sports loses huge part of their betting volume and earnings and decides to change the policy. Arbitrage area is over.
I am waiting for your thoughts and ideas about that!! (I want to thank the man that wrote that article really good job
)
.
