Behavioral Biases in Football Lottery Decision-Making: An Integrated Prospect Theory and Machine Learning Approach

Authors

  • Finn Erickson Department of Computer Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
  • Devidor J. Carpenter Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Keywords:

football lottery, behavioral biases, prospect theory, machine learning, system architecture, algorithmic fairness, responsible gambling, infrastructure governance

Abstract

The football lottery represents a complex socio-technical domain in which millions of participants routinely make decisions under uncertainty, often exhibiting systematic departures from rationality. This paper presents an integrated analytical framework that synthesizes prospect theory with modern machine learning architectures to examine, detect, and contextualize behavioral biases in large-scale lottery decision-making environments. Rather than proposing a single predictive model, the study adopts a systems-level perspective to interrogate the structural trade-offs, infrastructural requirements, governance mechanisms, and ethical implications inherent in deploying such integrated systems. We discuss how core prospect theory constructs such as reference dependence, loss aversion, and probability weighting can be operationalized within machine learning pipelines that combine real-time transactional data, contextual match information, and user interaction streams. The analysis is organized around a set of interconnected architectural axes, including the tension between interpretability and predictive fidelity, the design of streaming data fabrics to capture time-varying behavioral signatures, the maintenance of algorithmic fairness across heterogeneous demographic segments, the robustness of inference under adversarial contamination and concept drift, and the sustainability of computational workloads at population scale. Policy considerations regarding consumer protection, responsible gambling mandates, and transnational regulatory fragmentation are examined as constitutive elements of the system design space rather than external constraints. Through cross-domain comparisons with financial trading and insurance underwriting, we identify recurring patterns and critical divergences that inform forward-looking deployment strategies. The paper contributes a conceptual blueprint for the responsible, transparent, and resilient integration of behavioral economic theories into the automated decision-support infrastructures that increasingly mediate collective gambling behavior.

References

1. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

2. Thaler, R. H., & Ziemba, W. T. (1988). Anomalies: Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(2), 161–174.

3. Baboota, R., & Kaur, H. (2019). Predictive analysis and modelling football results using machine learning approach for English Premier League. International Journal of Forecasting, 35(2), 741–755.

4. Bunker, R. P., & Thabtah, F. (2019). A machine learning framework for sport result prediction. Applied Computing and Informatics, 15(1), 27–33.

5. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

6. Avery, C., & Chevalier, J. (1999). Identifying investor sentiment from price paths: The case of football betting. Journal of Business, 72(4), 493–521.

7. Kreps, J., Narkhede, N., & Rao, J. (2011). Kafka: A distributed messaging system for log processing. Proceedings of the NetDB 2011 Workshop.

8. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), Article 115.

9. Abbott, M. W. (2020). The changing epidemiology of gambling disorder and gambling-related harm: Public health implications. Public Health, 184, 41–45.

10. Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., Chaudhary, V., Young, M., Crespo, J. F., & Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 2503–2511.

11. Liu, S., Wang, Y., & He, H. (2020, March). A New Playing Method of the Guessing Football Lottery. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 790, No. 1, p. 012100). IOP Publishing.

12. Hubáček, O., Šír, G., & Železný, F. (2019). Exploiting sports-betting market using machine learning. International Journal of Forecasting, 35(2), 773–783.

13. Sterbenz, J. P., Hutchison, D., Çetinkaya, E. K., Jabbar, A., Rohrer, J. P., Schöller, M., & Smith, P. (2010). Resilience and survivability in communication networks: Strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines. Computer Networks, 54(8), 1245–1265.

14. Gainsbury, S. M. (2015). Online gambling addiction: The relationship between Internet gambling and disordered gambling. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 185–193.

15. Lipton, Z. C. (2018). The mythos of model interpretability. Queue, 16(3), 31–57.

16. Voigt, P., & Von dem Bussche, A. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A practical guide. Springer.

17. Paul, R. J., & Weinbach, A. P. (2011). Investigating the “wisdom of crowds” in football betting markets. Applied Economics Letters, 18(8), 733–736.

18. Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. J. (1990). Selling hope: State lotteries in America. Harvard University Press.

19. Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl 3), 7280–7287.

20. Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A., & Etzioni, O. (2020). Green AI. Communications of the ACM, 63(12), 54–63.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-11