- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,954
- Reaction score
- 185
- Points
- 63
The danger isn't ignorance. Ignorance is easy to account for - you simply don't bet on things you don't know. The danger is the transition period between ignorance and genuine edge, when you know enough to have confident opinions but not enough to know which of those opinions are actually better than what's already in the price. That transition period is where new-competition losses concentrate.
This article is about managing that transition systematically rather than expensively. How to use LLMs to accelerate the research process without accelerating the confidence. How to build a simple quality model from freely available data before you've watched enough matches to trust your own impressions. How to run a calibration phase - paper trading your assessments against closing lines - that tells you whether emerging edge is real before you've committed stakes to finding out the hard way.
The competition you're targeting doesn't matter much for the workflow. Norwegian Eliteserien, Belgian Pro League, Brazilian Série A, MLS. The process is the same. The specific data sources vary. The calibration discipline is identical.
Why New Competitions Attract Bettors and Why That's a Problem
The reasoning for expanding to a new competition usually sounds analytical. Main markets in the Premier League and Bundesliga are efficient. Niche competitions have thinner markets and slower information processing. The edge that's been arbitraged out of the top tier still exists further down the value chain.
That reasoning is broadly correct. The conclusion bettors draw from it - that they can find edge in a new competition quickly by applying their existing analytical framework - is where it goes wrong.
Analytical frameworks transfer partially, not fully. The pressing intensity analysis that works well for the Championship requires recalibration for the Norwegian top flight, where artificial pitches, long winter breaks, and a compressed season produce a different underlying data environment. The manager tenure arc patterns built from English football don't map cleanly onto leagues where coaching turnover is faster or slower and where managerial cultures differ. The set piece analysis that's been refined over two years of Premier League watching starts from scratch in a competition where set piece delivery quality is distributed differently across clubs.
More fundamentally, the market for a niche competition isn't staffed by idiots. It's staffed by people who've been pricing that specific competition for years - often including specialists from that country who follow it the way you follow your home league. Your two months of watching and your general analytical framework is competing against that. The market being thinner doesn't mean the market being wrong more often. It means the errors, when they occur, take longer to correct. Those are different properties with different implications for how you find edge.
The LLM-assisted onboarding workflow doesn't solve the knowledge gap immediately. It structures the process of closing it, identifies where the market is most likely to be soft for structural rather than analytical reasons, and - critically - gives you a calibration mechanism that tells you whether your assessments are adding value before you've committed real money to the question.
Phase One: Mapping the Information Environment
Before any data analysis, you need to understand the information environment of the competition. What sources exist, how reliable they are, how quickly news travels from training grounds to public knowledge, which journalists have genuine access and which are aggregating second-hand information.
This is where the LLM earns its first contribution. Its training data includes substantial coverage of most professional football competitions worldwide - not at the depth of the Premier League, but enough to produce a useful starting map. Run a prompt like this:
"I'm beginning analytical coverage of [competition name] for betting purposes. I need to map the information environment before building any analytical framework. Tell me: what are the primary data sources covering this competition - both statistical and journalistic? Which statistical platforms cover this league and what metrics are available? Who are the most reliable journalists or analysts covering it? What are the known characteristics of the information environment - how quickly does team news travel, are manager press conferences reliable sources of tactical information, is there a significant language barrier affecting English-language coverage? Flag where your knowledge of this competition may be limited or outdated."
That last instruction matters. For well-covered European leagues the model will produce a useful starting map. For genuinely niche competitions - lower Brazilian divisions, Scandinavian second tiers - it may produce a confident-sounding but partially unreliable response. Asking it to flag its own uncertainty is the instruction that converts a potentially misleading answer into a useful starting point that you know requires verification.
The output gives you a research agenda rather than a research conclusion. You verify the sources it names, identify the ones it missed, and add your own calibration from the source reliability document you're about to build. The model's map is a first draft. Your verification makes it usable.
Phase Two: Building a Simple Quality Model
Most serious bettors targeting a new competition make one of two errors. They either skip the quantitative foundation entirely and rely on impressionistic assessment, or they spend weeks building an elaborate model before they've developed enough qualitative understanding to know whether the model's outputs make sense.
The right approach is a simple quality model - simple enough to build in a few hours, robust enough to catch the biggest mispricings, and explicitly temporary in the sense that it will be refined as your qualitative understanding develops.
FBref covers most professional leagues worldwide at some level of detail. The coverage depth varies significantly - Champions League clubs get full tracking data, lower Scandinavian leagues might only have basic event data - but the fundamentals are usually available: goals, expected goals, shots, possession, progressive passes, and some version of defensive metrics. That's enough for a starting model.
The LLM's role in this phase is helping you write the data extraction and structuring code, not doing the analysis itself. Run a prompt like this:
"I'm building a simple quality model for [competition] using FBref data. The metrics available for this competition are [list what you've verified is available]. I want to build a team quality ranking using the following approach: [describe your intended methodology - for instance, a weighted combination of xG for, xG against, and recent form with a recency decay]. Please write Python code that pulls the current season's data from FBref for this competition, calculates the quality ranking using my methodology, and outputs a ranked table with the underlying metrics visible. Include a parameter section at the top where I can adjust the weights."
The parameter section instruction is from the bankroll modelling article's prompt architecture. It makes the model easy to adjust as your understanding of the competition develops and you discover that certain metrics predict results better than others in this specific context.
Once the model is running, you face the most important calibration question in this phase: does the model's quality ranking agree with your impressionistic assessment of which teams are good? If the model says Team A is the strongest in the league and your two months of watching suggests they're actually mid-table quality, one of three things is true. Your impressions are wrong. The model is using the wrong metrics or weights for this competition. Or the model is right and the team is outperforming their underlying metrics in ways that are probably unsustainable.
All three of those possibilities are worth investigating, and the investigation itself is how you develop genuine understanding of the competition. Running a model that agrees with everything you already think produces no new information.
Phase Three: Identifying Where the Market Is Structurally Soft
General analytical edge in a new competition is hard to develop quickly. Structural softness in specific markets or situations is different - it's often identifiable before you have deep competition knowledge, because it follows from the properties of the competition and the market rather than from detailed analysis of individual teams.
The LLM can help map this structural landscape. A prompt like this:
"I'm building betting coverage of [competition]. Based on what you know about this competition's characteristics - schedule density, squad depth at clubs in this league, typical market coverage by bookmakers, data availability - identify the market types and situations where the market is most likely to be structurally soft due to information processing limitations rather than requiring deep competition-specific knowledge to exploit. Distinguish between softness that would require competition-specific knowledge to exploit and softness that follows from general structural properties anyone could identify. Flag your uncertainty about this competition specifically."
The distinction the prompt asks for - structural softness versus knowledge-dependent softness - is the key one. Asian Handicap lines for mid-week fixtures in competitions with thin media coverage are structurally soft because bookmakers allocate less resource to them, regardless of whether you have competition-specific knowledge. That's different from softness that requires you to know that a specific manager consistently underperforms against high-block defences - that requires the competition knowledge you're still building.
In a new competition, you can act on structural softness immediately. You should wait on knowledge-dependent edge until the calibration phase tells you your knowledge is actually generating value.
Phase Four: The Calibration Period
This is the phase most bettors skip, and skipping it is why new-competition expansion so frequently produces early losses.
The calibration phase runs for a minimum of six to eight weeks, covers at least thirty assessed fixtures, and involves no real stakes. You produce a full pre-match assessment for each fixture you're monitoring - your probability estimate for each outcome, the market price, and your explicit reasoning for any divergence between the two. You log the closing line. You log the outcome. You do not bet.
At the end of the calibration period, you run this prompt on the accumulated assessments:
"The following are my pre-match assessments for [competition] over [time period]. Each entry includes my probability estimate, the opening market price, the closing line, and the outcome. I want you to analyse this record for three things. First, is my average assessment closer to the opening line or the closing line - this tells me whether I'm adding information or just confirming what the market already had. Second, are there specific team types, match contexts, or market types where my assessments are systematically closer to closing lines than others - this identifies where my emerging knowledge is generating value. Third, are there systematic biases in my assessments - do I consistently underestimate or overestimate specific teams or situations. Present each finding with the sample size it's based on and flag findings based on fewer than ten cases as directional only."
The first question is the most important. If your assessments are consistently closer to the opening line than the closing line, you are not adding analytical value - you are confirming what the market already priced. That's not an edge. If your assessments are consistently closer to the closing line than the opening line in specific contexts, you are identifying situations where your analysis is ahead of the market's processing. That's the beginning of a genuine edge, and it tells you specifically where to focus your attention.
Six to eight weeks with no real stakes feels like a long time. It isn't, relative to the cost of discovering through live betting that your confidence in a new competition was not calibration but overconfidence.
Phase Five: Graduated Stake Introduction
The calibration phase doesn't end with a clean green light to bet at full stakes. It ends with a specific and limited set of contexts where the evidence suggests your analysis is adding value, and those contexts are where you start with reduced stakes.
The transition prompt, run after a positive calibration phase:
"Based on my calibration record for [competition], I've identified [describe the specific contexts where your assessments outperformed the opening line]. I want to design a graduated stake introduction for these contexts. The constraints are: starting stakes should be no more than [X]% of what I would stake in a competition I have full confidence in; stakes should only apply to contexts where the calibration evidence is based on at least fifteen cases; and I should plan a review after [number] live bets in each context to assess whether the calibration finding is holding in production. Design a simple stake scaling framework that starts conservatively, increases based on continued evidence of edge, and includes a stop condition if early live results diverge significantly from calibration expectations."
The stop condition is the instruction most people omit. A graduated stake introduction without a stop condition is just slow overconfidence. The stop condition - defined before you start, not invented when results go badly - is what makes the framework disciplined rather than aspirational.
The Ongoing Maintenance Distinction
Once you've completed onboarding and are actively betting a competition, the workflow shifts from building knowledge to maintaining it. Two different tasks that people often conflate.
Building knowledge means developing your quality model, your source calibration, your manager database, your understanding of competition-specific structural properties. This is front-loaded into the onboarding period and continues at a slower pace as long as you're covering the competition.
Maintaining knowledge means keeping current - following team news, tracking form, updating your model with new data, monitoring whether competition-specific patterns are holding or shifting. This is ongoing and lighter-touch once the foundation is built.
The LLM's role is different in each. During building, it's an active research partner helping you synthesise unfamiliar information and structure your models. During maintenance, it's mostly a processing tool - summarising information you've collected, flagging anomalies in your model outputs, running the weekly workflows described in other articles in this series.
The transition between the two modes is worth marking explicitly. When you can articulate your analytical framework for a competition clearly enough to write a coherent system prompt for an AI research assistant - as described in the personal AI research assistant article - you've probably moved from building to maintaining. Before that point, the framework isn't stable enough to systematise, which means you're still in the building phase regardless of how long you've been watching the competition.
Anyway. The most common mistake in new-competition expansion is treating the research phase and the betting phase as sequential when they're actually distinct and the second should only begin when the first has produced verified evidence of value. The calibration period is what creates that evidence. It's also the part nobody wants to do because watching thirty fixtures, logging assessments, and not betting on them feels like losing thirty opportunities. It isn't. It's buying information that will tell you whether the opportunities were real. That information is worth considerably more than the stakes you'd have lost discovering it wasn't.
FAQ
How long does the full onboarding workflow take before I can start betting a new competition with confidence?
Realistically, three to four months minimum for a competition you're starting from scratch. One month to map the information environment and build the quality model. Six to eight weeks for the calibration period. Two to three weeks to analyse the calibration results and design the graduated introduction. That timeline assumes you're watching matches regularly and actively building the qualitative layer alongside the quantitative work. Trying to compress it produces the overconfidence problem the whole workflow is designed to avoid. If three to four months feels too long, the honest question is whether you actually want to develop genuine edge in this competition or whether you want to bet on it and call it analysis. Those are different projects with different timelines.
What if the calibration period produces no clear evidence of edge in any context - do I abandon the competition?
Not necessarily, but you treat the result honestly rather than rationalising it. Three possible conclusions from a calibration period with no clear edge signal. First: your analytical approach isn't suited to this competition and needs fundamental rethinking before the next calibration period. Second: you haven't watched enough matches to develop the qualitative layer that gives your quantitative model context - another season of watching before betting is the right call. Third: the competition genuinely doesn't have the structural softness you assumed when you decided to target it, and the effort required to develop real edge exceeds the edge available. All three are valid conclusions. The third one is worth taking seriously - not every competition is worth developing coverage of, and a calibration period that finds nothing is more useful information than a betting period that finds out expensively.
Can I run this onboarding workflow in parallel across multiple new competitions simultaneously?
Technically yes. Practically, it produces shallow coverage of multiple competitions rather than genuine edge in any of them. The onboarding workflow is front-loaded with qualitative work - watching matches, reading coverage, building source calibration - that requires real attention rather than just processing time. Spreading that attention across three new competitions simultaneously means the qualitative layer that calibrates your quantitative model never develops properly in any of them. The better approach is sequential: complete the full onboarding for one competition, reach the maintenance phase, and then begin onboarding the next. The total time to genuinely cover three competitions is longer this way. The probability that all three produce verified edge rather than expensive calibration failures is considerably higher.
