In the sports betting industry, "Expected Value (EV)" is often considered a concept biased towards players. However, if EV is only understood as a "tool used by skilled players to win money," it actually underestimates its impact on platform growth, user satisfaction, and product design.
From the perspective of iGaming practitioners, EV is a set of underlying logic that determines whether a platform is healthy and whether users can sustain participation.
❔ What is EV essentially?
The definition of EV is simple, under a large number of repeated bets, it is the average expected outcome of a single bet.
The formula is: EV = (winning probability × profit) − (losing probability × loss)
But for platforms, EV defines the long-term relationship between users and the odds system. Players pursue gambling, definitely aiming for an EV that is at least close to 0 or positive. The platform relies on overall negative EV + high-frequency betting + long-term participation.
Once users perceive "the system is unfair" or "negative EV is too large" over the long term, the only behavioral outcome is to reduce betting frequency, shorten the betting cycle, until they finally leave.
Many platform operators instinctively reject positive EV, believing that it will allow "arbitrage players" and "professional players" to win the platform's money.
But the reality is that many ordinary players do not calculate EV. They perceive whether the platform is "worth betting" and "fair" over the long term, usually through experience. ✔️ On the long-term behavioral level of players, user experience ≈ perceived EV, rather than quantifiable mathematical EV.
If a platform consistently offers users obviously distorted odds, continuously revolves around popular events with "harvesting designs," and maintains a return rate consistently below the market average, problems will eventually emerge.
Even if no users actually calculate what EV is, they will still form an intuitive judgment after multiple bets: this platform is "unfair."
❔ How does EV determine the fate of a platform in real operations
In many platforms' data, a very similar growth curve often appears: after new users come in, the first month has high betting frequency and strong participation, everything looks healthy; but entering the second month, activity begins to decline noticeably; by the third month, users almost disappear in batches.
On the surface, it seems to be marketing failure, poor user quality, or problems with the acquisition channels. The real situation is likely due to the system being in an extreme negative EV state for a long time, rapidly depleting users' trust, which reflects on satisfaction.
Many users leave while their accounts still have a balance, but they no longer want to bet. The reason is not that they have lost everything, but discomfort in the experience: for example, I judged this game correctly, but the odds changed too quickly, always feeling one step behind.
All of this will eventually reflect on the platform's growth structure. A truly healthy and long-term platform usually has a small number of high-frequency users with an EV close to 0, a large number of entertainment-type players with slightly negative EV, and a sufficiently long user lifecycle and stable betting frequency.
Conversely, platforms that rely on quick harvesting, rapid loss, and continuous acquisition are short-term income that seems decent, but the scale can never truly expand.
🎱 Allowing users to "feel positive EV," the platform can still make money
A truly sustainable sports betting platform relies on high-frequency betting, rich gameplay, and a longer user lifecycle to form a structural advantage.
Mainstream gameplay's return rate should be as close to the market average as possible, allowing more profits to be placed on accumulators, special plays, and live betting in terms of structural design, letting users clearly feel that: the core gameplay is fair, the choice is in their own hands, thereby forming a positive experience on a psychological level.
In mature markets, allowing a small range of positive EV to exist is itself a necessary cost to maintain market liquidity and activity. Platforms can manage high-frequency, high-capital, model-based betting flexibly, combined with betting limits and gameplay segmentation to control risks.
In actual operations, users' perception of EV will be anchored by a few strong "memory points," therefore, the "winning experience" must be embedded into product design. ✔️ A typical approach is to moderately relax risk control and appropriately profit during the early stages when new users enter the platform—such as the first 20 bets or the first 7 days after registration—allowing the odds to be as close to the real probability of the market as possible, without rapidly compressing margins as users just form betting habits. This way, when users make their first correct judgment, the system conveys to them an experience of fair participation.
This early positive memory often becomes the psychological starting point for deep users to continue betting later, even if they start losing money, they still consider it a fair platform.
A truly mature platform is not afraid of users understanding EV. Allowing users to feel emotionally "I have a chance," while the platform collects long-term profits in product structure, is not a contradictory relationship, but a necessary path for sports betting to mature in the market.
—————
This is the only gambling industry knowledge channel on TG, this channel's audience is elite executives in the gambling industry. Produced by "Global iGaming Leader - PASA." Deep content analyzing the past, present, and future of the gambling industry is published daily.
This content is exclusively created byhttps://t.me/gamblingdeep. If you like our content, feel free to forward it.
Follow this channel to get a free copy of "Gambling Outbound Strategy, from Strategy to Practical Guide" report, message @Pasarose_bot after following to receive it
More data reports: @pasa_research
Join the member group: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: www.pasa.news
