Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “expert” as one with special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject. That’s a clear and non-debatable explanation of a simple word. Yet, the sports betting craze seems to have produced more “experts” who wouldn’t qualify as such in any other industry on earth.
Collectively, it feels like the entire sports media landscape woke up one morning and decided that if broadcasters and writers know about sports, the public would be gullible enough to believe they understand sports betting too—simply by adding “expert” to their bios and résumés. That same kind of nonsense made headlines again this week to push a selective narrative.
Last week, an experiment attempted to see if AI could be a better sports bettor than the public and supposed “experts.” The only issue? AI didn’t compete against real experts—just media personalities. OddsTrader Turbo made picks against the spread while tracking both the public’s consensus and six self-described NFL “experts” to compare results.
The website teased, “The results will shock you.” My response: if you’re shocked that AI beat the public and random media personalities, you’re exactly the type of bettor gaming companies' prey upon.
The results were predictable. OddsTrader Turbo finished with a 52.5%-win rate, outperforming five of six “experts” and handily beating the public. The “experts” averaged just 47%, with only one breaking 50%—and none would have profited betting standard -110 lines. The public, predictably, hit around 45%.
While the headline focused on AI’s success, the reality is no one would have made any money—not the "winner" AI, not the public, and certainly not the “experts.” In today’s betting media world, filled with influencers masquerading as bettors, beware where you get your advice. Ironically, AI might now be crowned an “expert”—despite losing money like the rest of them.