Of course not. They are using complex mathematical models, statistics, variables including rosters, injuries, calendar etc. Only then the odds are further corrected by the market. No one is giving 50/50 odds for a Canada - Latvia game and then waiting for gamblers to bet massively on Canada to produce the right odds. There is legit analysis behind it, you know.
I do not claim that Slovakia is better than Switzerland. I just pointed that there is consensus among the massive amounts of people who make money out of predicting sports events that Slovakia is on the other tier than Germany / Latvia / Kazakhstan.
It looks like I need to explain it to you. Sports betting is a business and the primary responsibility of bookmakers is to run a profit. They do that by placing a profit margin, guaranteeing profits from any outcome, as the implied probabilities never add up to 100%, they're inflated artificially. The setting of odds is usually outsourced to a company like Sportradar, which uses algorithms and mathematical models. It's not punditry or expert opinions, it's just numbers.
The more illiquid the market, the higher the overround. The smaller the market, the lower the limit of your maximum bet. This way the bookies guarantee running a profit.
They're not profiting by somehow predicting events, they profit from making even the roughest of estimates.
There is no such thing as consensus in a market. It's like saying there's consensus on the price of oil or the price of butter. It's a temporary equilibrium.
If the algorithm is wrong, the odds will be incorrect. The bettors are not making massive amounts of money, the bookies are the ones making massive amounts of money due to their artificially shortened odds.
The only scenario in which the bettors are making money is when the models are wrong. And the models are often wrong on niche markets, and particularly in these types of junior level tournaments, which do not have a lot of continuity and carry over in terms of the player pool. There's a lot of variance involved.
For instance, when a national programme is on the downturn, the models factor in their past results and it can take years before the algorithm is weighed correctly again.
If the liquidity of the market is tiny or the bettors globally come from an isolated market in, say, Canada, the odds won't actually even get corrected enough. Which is why I'm able to earn a couple of euros each year on the WJC.
And, most importantly, there is no consensus that Slovakia is in a different tier than Germany or Latvia. Their current roster is slightly better. Next year, if their roster is shit, they're still going to be the favorites. In terms of their entire programme, and we can choose any metric here, Slovakia is not better than Germany in any way whatsoever. And it's not even arguable.
The last time they faced each other head to head, the implied probability of Slovakia winning in overtime was <50%.
So do elaborate according to what metric is Slovakia on a different tier than Germany. So far I have not heard a single valid point on this.