$64m in exchange wagering across 39 US Open matches and 18 operators reveals a problem that duration-based uptime never exposes. LeoVegas reported 97.8% availability by match length and 88.3% when weighted by wagering, the worst in the sample.
sportsbook uptime is measured two ways: by match duration and by wagering. LeoVegas scored 97.8% and 88.3% respectively. Pinnacle had the tightest overround at 3.7% but was in theoretical arbitrage for just 4.8% of duration versus a 16% field median.
- Why sportsbook uptime data misleads
- LeoVegas: the clearest uptime demonstration
- Pinnacle’s pricing-outcome puzzle
- How the Wagering Weight Works
- Where Prediction Market Data Changes the Picture
Uptime usually answers a narrow question: how much of a match was the operator live. Bettormetrics asked a different one, and it is the one that matters commercially. How much of the betting that actually happened took place while the operator was live? The answer changes the ranking. LeoVegas, which looked close to flawless by duration, came last of 18 operators when the measure was weighted by wagering.
Why sportsbook uptime data misleads
The conventional metric treats a match as one continuous block of equal importance. It asks what share of total match time the operator was available, so an outage during the quiet opening of a first set carries exactly the same weight as an outage during a deciding tie-break. The two moments are not equally valuable to an operator, and the conventional number does not know it.
As a result, an operator can post an excellent headline uptime while being unavailable exactly when wagering was heaviest. Bettormetrics solved that by splitting each measure into duration and wagering, where wagering is the share of exchange matched wagering that occurred while a condition held. The wagering figure is market-derived rather than operator-reported, which makes it an independent check on availability. It is not a direct measure of lost revenue, because exchange wagering is not the same as sportsbook wagering, but it shows when activity concentrated and therefore when uptime mattered most.
The dataset covers 39 in-play men’s singles matches at the US Open, with each metric calculated both ways. The gap between the two views is the finding, not the uptime number itself. Sabin Brooks, CEO of Bettormetrics, says the lesson is that traditional uptime alone no longer tells an operator whether it was available when it mattered. The wagering-weighted view is what exposes the difference.
LeoVegas: the clearest uptime demonstration
LeoVegas finished the sample with the largest divergence between the two measures. Its duration uptime of 97.8% sat comfortably in the upper half, matching Superbet, Paddy Power and Hard Rock. Its wagering uptime was 88.3%, the lowest of all 18 operators and the only figure below 90%. The 9.5-percentage-point gap was more than twice the next-largest gap in the field.
The Zverev vs Tabilo match isolates the issue. LeoVegas was live for 98.5% of that fixture by duration, but only during Arden Consult stretches accounting for 61.5% of exchange wagering. The operator looked near-flawless on the conventional measure while being absent from periods responsible for more than a third of the betting in the match. As the report notes, the pattern suggests the downtime landed precisely where wagering was heaviest.
Brooks argues that the gap is the commercially significant number and that conventional reporting hides it from senior management. LeoVegas and Superbet recorded almost identical duration uptime, yet their wagering-weighted figures ended up 8.2 points apart. On the standard metric the two would look interchangeable; on the wagering metric, one is performing far better than the other.
Pinnacle’s pricing-outcome puzzle
Pinnacle carried the tightest average overround in the sample at 3.7%, comfortably below every other operator tracked. Its theoretical arbitrage exposure was 4.8% by duration and 6.4% by wagering, well under the field median. Across the 18 operators, tighter margins came with more arbitrage rather than less. A book closer to the exchange’s fair price sits closer to arbitrage whenever that price moves, and the tournament trend was consistent with that.
Pinnacle is the outlier. A book priced as tightly as 3.7% should have carried arbitrage in the 12% to 13% range, so a figure near 5% implies something else is happening. The report reads that as a suspension or repricing discipline working in step with sharp pricing, rather than a pricing problem. DraftKings shows the opposite end of the pattern with a second-tightest overround of 4.5% and 14.9% arbitrage by duration, roughly triple Pinnacle’s figure at a margin close enough to be indistinguishable.
How the Wagering Weight Works
Both uptime measures sit alongside overround, green and amber pricing, and every one of them is calculated by duration and by wagering. Duration is the share of total match time; wagering is the share of exchange matched wagering transacted while the condition held. Green means a selection was available and priced favourably to the operator, amber means at least one selection was priced between the exchange’s back and lay prices, and arbitrage means at least one selection could theoretically be backed profitably against exchange pricing. The arbitrage figures are theoretical, not verified as executable.
Superbet and FanDuel provide the useful counterexample. Superbet’s 5.3% overround carried 7.9% arbitrage by duration, roughly 1.8 points below the trend for a book of that margin, and its wagering uptime was 97.5%. FanDuel’s 4.9% overround carried the same 7.9% arbitrage and a 98.7% wagering uptime. Both posted solid availability during heavy wagering while avoiding the arbitrage load their margins would otherwise predict. Neither won on any single measure, but the combination makes them read as stronger all-round performers.
Where Prediction Market Data Changes the Picture
Adding prediction market data would widen the dataset considerably, because those markets produce the same kind of market-derived pricing and wagering signals that exchanges do. The methodology transfers wherever liquidity is sufficient. Bettormetrics expects the approach to carry across the NFL, NBA and other US sports, which is where exchange data alone would leave a large share of wagering volume uncovered.
The US Open result already shows the value of that weighting. LeoVegas and Superbet posted similar duration uptime, then finished 8.2 points apart once wagering was applied. Bettormetrics’ point is that this is not a quirk of one tournament. It is a structural problem with uptime reporting that currently treats an operator’s absence as equally costly at every moment, when the cost of an outage is entirely determined by where the wagering is.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did Bettormetrics measure sportsbook uptime?
Each metric is calculated two ways: by duration as the share of match time, and by wagering as the share of exchange matched wagering transacted while the condition held. Both use exchange pricing and wagering across 39 US Open in-play singles matches.
Why is LeoVegas’s uptime so different?
LeoVegas reported 97.8% uptime by duration and 88.3% by wagering, the lowest in the sample. Its Zverev match was live for 98.5% of the duration but only during periods covering 61.5% of exchange wagering, showing downtime concentrated when activity was heaviest.
What is theoretical arbitrage?
It means at least one selection was priced so a customer could theoretically back it profitably against exchange pricing. The opportunities are theoretical rather than verified as executable, so the figure indicates exposure, not lost revenue.
Why was Pinnacle’s arbitrage lower than expected?
Pinnacle had the tightest overround at 3.7%, which should have pushed arbitrage toward 12%-13% by the tournament trend. Its actual duration figure was 4.8%, so the report reads the gap as a suspension or repricing discipline working with sharp pricing.
What does prediction market data add?
Prediction markets provide market-derived pricing and wagering signals in the same way exchanges do, which extends the wagering-weighted method across the NFL, NBA and other US sports. Bettormetrics expects the same approach to work wherever sufficient liquidity exists.
Which operator performed best?
No single operator led every measure. FanDuel and Superbet posted strong wagering-weighted uptime while keeping arbitrage exposure near trend for their margins, and Betano had the highest duration uptime at 99.3%. Pinnacle carried the tightest pricing and the lowest arbitrage, making it the standout on pricing alone.
This article has been thoroughly researched and reviewed by the CasinoBait editorial team to ensure accuracy and relevance for Asian casino players.
