IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2018-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Probabilistic forecasts for the 2018 FIFA World Cup based on the bookmaker consensus model

Author

Listed:
  • Achim Zeileis
  • Christoph Leitner
  • Kurt Hornik

Abstract

Football fans worldwide anticipate the 2018 FIFA World Cup that will take place in Russia from 14 June to 15 July 2018. 32 of the best teams from 5 confederations compete to determine the new World Champion. Using a consensus model based on quoted odds from 26 bookmakers and betting exchanges a probabilistic forecast for the outcome of the World Cup is obtained. The favorite is Brazil with a forecasted winning probability of 16.6%, closely followed by the defending World Champion and 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup winner Germany with a winning probability of 15.8%. Two other teams also have winning probabilities above 10%: Spain and France with 12.5% and 12.1%, respectively. The results from this bookmaker consensus model are coupled with simulations of the entire tournament to obtain implied abilities for each team. These allow to obtain pairwise probabilities for each possible game along with probabilities for each team to proceed to the various stages of the tournament. This shows that indeed the most likely final is a match of the top favorites Brazil and Germany (with a probability of 5.5%) where Brazil has the chance to compensate the dramatic semifinal in Belo Horizonte, four years ago. However, given that it comes to this final, the chances are almost even (50.6% for Brazil vs. 49.4% for Germany). The most likely semifinals are between the four top teams, i.e., with a probability of 9.4% Brazil and France meet in the first semifinal (with chances slightly in favor of Brazil in such a match, 53.5%) and with 9.2% Germany and Spain play the second semifinal (with chances slightly in favor of Germany with 53.1%). These probabilistic forecasts have been obtained by suitably averaging the quoted winning odds for all teams across bookmakers. More precisely, the odds are first adjusted for the bookmakers' profit margins ("overrounds"), averaged on the log-odds scale, and then transformed back to winning probabilities. Moreover, an "inverse" approach to simulating the tournament yields estimated team abilities (or strengths) from which probabilities for all possible pairwise matches can be derived. This technique (Leitner, Zeileis, and Hornik 2010a) correctly predicted the winner of 2010 FIFA World Cup (Leitner, Zeileis, and Hornik 2010b) and three out of four semifinalists at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (Zeileis, Leitner, and Hornik 2014). Interactive web graphics for this report are available at: https://eeecon.uibk.ac.at/~zeileis/news/fifa2018/

Suggested Citation

  • Achim Zeileis & Christoph Leitner & Kurt Hornik, 2018. "Probabilistic forecasts for the 2018 FIFA World Cup based on the bookmaker consensus model," Working Papers 2018-09, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
  • Handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2018-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.uibk.ac.at/downloads/c4041030/wpaper/2018-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Achim Zeileis & Christoph Leitner & Kurt Hornik, 2012. "History Repeating: Spain Beats Germany in the EURO 2012 Final," Working Papers 2012-09, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. Achim Zeileis & Christoph Leitner & Kurt Hornik, 2016. "Predictive Bookmaker Consensus Model for the UEFA Euro 2016," Working Papers 2016-15, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groll Andreas & Abedieh Jasmin, 2013. "Spain retains its title and sets a new record – generalized linear mixed models on European football championships," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 51-66, March.
    2. Groll Andreas & Kneib Thomas & Mayr Andreas & Schauberger Gunther, 2018. "On the dependency of soccer scores – a sparse bivariate Poisson model for the UEFA European football championship 2016," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 65-79, June.
    3. Groll Andreas & Schauberger Gunther & Tutz Gerhard, 2015. "Prediction of major international soccer tournaments based on team-specific regularized Poisson regression: An application to the FIFA World Cup 2014," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 97-115, June.
    4. Achim Zeileis & Christoph Leitner & Kurt Hornik, 2016. "Predictive Bookmaker Consensus Model for the UEFA Euro 2016," Working Papers 2016-15, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Achim Zeileis & Christoph Leitner & Kurt Hornik, 2014. "Home Victory for Brazil in the 2014 FIFA World Cup," Working Papers 2014-17, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consensus; agreement; bookmakers odds; tournament; 2018 FIFA World Cup;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • C40 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - General
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2018-09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Janette Walde (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.