Ai
AiOddsLab
All analyses
Verdict: Lottery Ticket. Rating 72 out of 100. Grade C.
Ai
AiOddsLab
Bet365
Lottery TicketC

Fun-stake only — variance is loud

Switzerland v Canada

Price looks +EV (+9.2% vs fair), but this is a longshot — the most likely outcome is still a loss. Fun-only stake.

Your odds
+6600
Fair odds
+6035
Edge
+9.2%
Price bump+31%Est. true win chance1.6%
Ai

Settle the debate

Save as image
Send link

AI breakdown

Verdict: This boost offers a substantial edge over fair odds, making it a "worth it" play.

  • Value: The boosted odds of +6600 present a 9.21% edge over the devigged fair odds of +6035.
  • Market context: The original odds of +5000 were significantly below fair value, but the boost to +6600 moves it well into positive EV territory.
  • Status: the matchup is no notable injury signal for the players involved.
  • Social: the matchup data on Reddit pulse.
  • Risk: This is a 3-leg parlay, carrying significant multi-leg parlay variance.

Smart insight: The EV of this bet is highly sensitive to the true probabilities of Johan Manzambi and Cyle Larin each achieving 2+ Shots on Target. Similar profile: This is a 3-leg parlay involving two player props and a game prop, a profile that often sees significant price discrepancies between books. Counter-case: The longshot nature of individual player prop targets, especially combined in a parlay, introduces high variance. Live context: the matchup lineups near tip-off.

Recommendation: Standard

How this bet was graded

Grade C · 72/100 · Lottery Ticket

We graded Switzerland v Canada at +6600 on Bet365 — a 3-leg ticket by comparing the offered price to a vig-free consensus of the wider market. The ticket centers on Johan Manzambi, Cyle Larin, Both Teams to Score. The bet earned a C grade (72/100), which we label "Lottery Ticket".

The headline number is edge versus fair: +9.21%. That figure is the long-run expected return per dollar staked, assuming the market consensus is an unbiased estimate of true probability. At odds this long, even a strongly positive edge cashes infrequently — single-bet variance dominates short samples. Because we couldn't fully match this market across other books, fair value here was derived from the host book's pre-boost line — treat the edge as directional rather than precise.

Fair odds calculation

Fair +6035 · Implied 1.6%

Fair odds represent the price you'd see in a perfectly efficient, zero-margin market. To compute them we pull current prices from the available sportsbooks on the same market, strip out each book's vig, and average the resulting no-vig probabilities. The averaged probability for this outcome lands at 1.6%, which converts to fair odds of +6035.

Compared to the boosted price of +6600 (a +31.4% move from the original line), that produces an edge of +9.21%. In plain English: if the market is right about the true probability, you'd expect to gain about 9.2 cents on every dollar staked, on average, across many bets of this exact shape.

Historical context

Longshots (+1500 and up) · Soccer · parlay

Across AiOddsLab's database, we've scored 781 graded Soccer bets, average edge of +4.80%, average rating 48/100.

Narrowing to the same market type, 322 graded parlay tickets, average edge of +3.85%, average rating 47/100. This is the closest apples-to-apples reference for the bet you're looking at.

Filtering by odds range alone (longshots (+1500 and up)), 203 graded tickets, average edge of +7.39%, average rating 47/100.

In the trailing 90 days, 781 graded Soccer bets, average edge of +4.80%, average rating 48/100. Compare that to the all-time baseline above to see whether grading and outcomes have drifted recently.

Stats update as new tickets are analyzed and graded. Sample sizes below 5 are suppressed.

Why the market may be wrong

A +9.2% edge implies Bet365 is pricing this outcome more generously than the field. That can happen for a few reasons: the book is using a promotional lift to attract action, the line hasn't caught up to a recent move elsewhere, or it's a low-limit market the sharper books haven't shaped yet. None of these guarantee the bet hits — they only suggest the price is on your side relative to consensus.

Frequently asked questions

What does a +9.2% edge mean?

Edge measures the gap between the price you're getting (+6600) and the fair price implied by the broader market (+6035). A positive edge of +9.2% means the boost is paying more than the market thinks the outcome is worth. Over a long run of identical situations, that gap is your expected return per dollar wagered — though variance on any single bet is large.

Does a positive edge mean the bet is likely to win?

No. Edge and win probability are different things. The market still implies roughly a 1.5% chance this hits at the offered odds. A +EV bet is one that pays more than its true probability warrants — most +EV bets at long odds still lose individually. The edge only shows up across many similar wagers.

How are fair odds calculated?

Fair odds are derived by taking sportsbook prices on the same market, removing the bookmaker's vig (the built-in margin), and averaging the resulting no-vig probabilities. For this bet we used the available market price to estimate a true win probability of 1.6%, which converts to fair odds of +6035. The boosted price of +6600 is then compared against that fair line to compute edge.

Why does this grade differ from the sportsbook's advertised lift?

Sportsbooks usually advertise the percentage lift over their own original price, which they set with house margin built in. Our grade compares the boosted price to a vig-free market consensus, so a "+50%" advertised lift can still grade poorly if the original line was already inflated, and a small lift can grade well if it pushes a fair price into +EV territory.

Should I bet every bet that grades well?

Grading is a price-quality signal, not a guarantee. Even an C-grade bet can lose, and you should size stakes within your bankroll, account for correlation between legs, and consider your own information about the matchup. This tool helps you avoid bad prices — it doesn't replace judgment or responsible bankroll management.