US Open data shows why sportsbook uptime can mislead

Kyle Kevin

iGaming Writer

Fact Checked

$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.

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

This article has been thoroughly researched and reviewed by the CasinoBait editorial team to ensure accuracy and relevance for Asian casino players.