Don't Care if You Know Football or Not, Buying the Draw Is the Best Strategy for This World Cup?

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2026-06-22Última atualização em 2026-06-22

Resumo

The article analyzes the 2026 FIFA World Cup group stage and argues that betting on a draw has been a surprisingly profitable strategy. Based on data from the prediction market Polymarket, a strategy of betting $1000 on a draw for each of the first 40 matches would have yielded a return of over 100%, despite only 13 matches ending in a draw. The core of the strategy is not the frequency of wins, but the high payout when low-probability draws occur, such as Spain's 0-0 draw with Cape Verde, where pre-match odds for a draw were only 5.5%. The article identifies common draw scores, like 1-1, which provide stability, and high-value 0-0 stalemates, where favorites fail to break down resilient defenses. It highlights Group G as an example, where 3 of the first 4 matches ended in draws, illustrating that draws are a tactical part of group stage calculus as teams often prioritize not losing. In conclusion, while strong teams remain favorites on the pitch, the article claims that for traders, betting on draws has so far produced the most significant profits.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Asher(@Asher_ 0210)

As the World Cup group stage progresses, a very counter-intuitive phenomenon is becoming increasingly clear—buying the favorite, doesn't necessarily make money; buying the underdog, isn't necessarily easy to hold onto either, but if you blindly buy the draw for every match, you might actually be raking it in.

Calculated based on Polymarket pre-match prediction data, if you put $1000 on "Draw" for every match, there have been 11 draws in the previous 36 matches (as shown below). That is to say, with a total investment of $36,000, the winnings from successful bets amount to $73,214. After deducting the principal, the net profit is $37,214, representing a return of over 100%.

Even more impressive, according to Polymarket pre-match prediction data, if we continue the strategy of "$1000 on Draw per match" for today's 4 matches (total investment of $4000). Looking at the results: Spain 4-0 Saudi Arabia, New Zealand 1-3 Egypt—these two resulted in a loss of the stake; but Belgium 0-0 Iran and Uruguay 2-2 Cape Verde were hits, with a combined payout of approximately $8,700. This means that even with only 2 hits out of the 4 matches today, the daily net profit is still around $4,700.

Including today's 4 matches, out of 40 World Cup group stage matches, there have been 13 draws. With a total investment of $40,000, the total payout from winning bets is approximately $81,914. After deducting all investments, the net profit is about $41,914, representing a return of nearly 105%.

A hit rate of 13/40 isn't particularly high, but the key to the draw strategy is never about "hitting often," but about "hitting big." The lower the pre-match probability of a draw, the higher the payout multiplier when it hits. Matches like Spain vs. Cape Verde with a 5.5% draw probability, Ecuador vs. Curaçao with an 8% draw probability, or Qatar vs. Switzerland with a 13% draw probability—hitting just a few of these is enough to turn the entire strategy from a small loss into a massive gain.

Cape Verde's Draw Against Spain Is the Most Typical "Liquidation Game" of the World Cup So Far

The Spain vs. Cape Verde group stage match wasn't just a big win for the draw strategy; it was also a nightmare for pre-match buyers backing the favorite.

In this group stage match, Spain's pre-match win probability was as high as 92%. Polymarket data shows that account @betoor619 (address: 0x70088c990ffae782c699b9250f5aa6cbe4e3c666) bought Spain to win in the World Cup group stage match Spain vs. Cape Verde. The match ended 0:0, resulting in a loss of $999,000 for this user.

It's worth noting that this user bought in at the 92-cent moment, meaning they staked $1 million in principal for a potential profit of $85,000. A seemingly sure-win trade ultimately resulted in a cold loss due to the 7 incredible saves by Cape Verde's 40-year-old goalkeeper and Cape Verde's extremely resilient defense.

0-0 and 1-1 Are Becoming the Main Theme of This World Cup So Far

Looking at the draw results that have hit so far, draws in this World Cup group stage aren't appearing randomly but are concentrated in a few typical scorelines.

The most common is 1-1. Canada vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Qatar vs. Switzerland, Brazil vs. Morocco, Belgium vs. Egypt, Saudi Arabia vs. Uruguay, Portugal vs. DR Congo, Czech Republic vs. South Africa—all ended with this score. The commonality in these matches is that neither side was completely without chances, nor did the weaker team simply park the bus until the end. More often, the stronger team failed to convert their advantage into a win, while the weaker team seized an opportunity to respond. The matches seemed back-and-forth, but in the end, neither side could truly break through the other.

For traders, the value of 1-1 lies in its stability. It's not the most exaggerated source of profit, but it occurs frequently, forming the foundation of this "buy draw every match" strategy.

What really boosts the profits are the 0-0 draws.

Spain vs. Cape Verde is the most typical example. Spain was considered the absolute favorite pre-match, with only a 5.5% draw probability. But the match ended 0-0. If $1,000 was invested pre-match on the draw, the payout would be approximately $18,182. Ecuador vs. Curaçao follows a similar logic. With only an 8% draw probability, it also resulted in 0-0, with $1,000 invested corresponding to a payout of $12,500.

Therefore, the real money-making aspect of the draw strategy isn't about hitting every match, but rather that a few low-probability draws, when they do hit, come with very exaggerated payout multipliers. This is especially true for 0-0 matches, where the on-field action often involves the favorite team attacking constantly while the underdog's goalkeeper and defense repeatedly clear the ball.

Group G Is Even More Ridiculous: 3 Draws in 4 Matches

If Spain vs. Cape Verde represents low-probability draws, then Group G is more like a microcosm of the "draw density" in this group stage.

Out of the first 4 matches, Group G has produced 3 draws. In the first round: Belgium 1-1 Egypt, Iran 2-2 New Zealand; in the second round: Belgium 0-0 Iran. The only match with a decisive result was New Zealand vs. Egypt, but this doesn't change one fact: the overall rhythm of this group has been completely slowed down by draws.

Especially Belgium, who have drawn both of their group stage matches so far. For the team, this means the pressure to qualify from the group continues; but for those who bought a Belgium win pre-match, the outcome of both matches was the same—no loss, but their position wiped out.

This is also where the draw is most underestimated in prediction markets. The market prefers to buy the favorite to win because it seems more intuitive; but the real logic of group stage football isn't "the favorite must win," but rather that many teams are willing to settle for 1 point. The weaker team doesn't want to lose, the stronger team doesn't want to take risks too early. Once a match reaches a stalemate, a draw becomes a very realistic outcome.

3 draws in the first 4 matches of Group G indicates that draws are not accidental upsets, but part of the group stage tactical game. Especially when the points haven't been significantly separated, every team starts calculating—winning is of course best, but avoiding losing first is often the safer choice.

Summary

In this World Cup, the strong teams are still the main characters.

Spain will win, Brazil will win, and favorites will always have matches where they deliver a crushing victory. But if we look purely at trading profits, the most profitable script in the group stage so far might not be the big wins by the giants, but rather those recurring 1-1s, 0-0s, and 2-2s.

Those who bought the favorites are waiting for goals, those who bought the draw are waiting for the final whistle, and so far, the latter are laughing louder.

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what has been the most profitable betting strategy for the World Cup group stage so far?

AAccording to the article, the most profitable betting strategy so far has been to consistently bet on a draw in every match. Using a hypothetical strategy of betting $1000 on a draw for each of the first 40 group stage matches, the strategy yielded a net profit of approximately $41,914, representing a return of nearly 105%.

QWhy is the 'bet on draw' strategy considered effective despite a relatively low win rate?

AThe 'bet on draw' strategy is effective not because it wins frequently, but because it 'wins valuably'. The pre-match probability for a draw is often very low, which means the payout multiplier is very high when a draw does occur. Hitting just a few of these low-probability draws can turn the overall strategy from a slight loss into a significant profit.

QWhich specific match is highlighted as the most typical 'liquidation game' for favorite bettors?

AThe match between Spain and Cape Verde is highlighted as the most typical 'liquidation game'. One user on Polymarket bet $1 million on Spain to win when the probability was 92%, aiming for an $85,000 profit. The match ended 0-0, resulting in a loss of 99.9% of their stake.

QWhat are the two most common draw scorelines mentioned, and how do they differ in their impact on the betting strategy?

AThe two most common draw scorelines are 1-1 and 0-0. The 1-1 draws are more frequent and form the 'base' of the strategy's returns. The 0-0 draws, while less frequent, are the key profit drivers because they often occur in matches where one team is a heavy favorite, leading to very low pre-match draw probabilities and therefore extremely high payout multipliers when they hit.

QWhat does the high frequency of draws in Group G (3 draws in 4 matches) illustrate about the nature of group stage matches?

AThe high frequency of draws in Group G illustrates that draws are not merely accidental upsets, but are an integral part of group stage tactics. In the early stages, many teams prioritize not losing over aggressively seeking a win. The calculus for teams often involves securing at least 1 point to maintain their position, leading to more cautious play and a higher likelihood of drawn matches.

Leituras Relacionadas

Beyond APR: After Staking, Who Really Owns Your ETH?

Beyond APR: Who Actually Controls Your ETH After Staking? The article challenges the common focus on Annual Percentage Rate (APR) when choosing ETH staking services. It argues that as staking yields converge, the more critical question is who controls the staked assets. The core of non-custodial staking lies in Ethereum's key separation design. A validator uses two keys: a **Signing Key** (for online consensus tasks) and a **Withdrawal Credential** (the ultimate control over funds). Service providers can manage the Signing Key to run the validator but cannot access the staked ETH. The user retains the Withdrawal Credential, which can be kept offline. Post-EIP-7002, users can even force a validator exit directly from their wallet if a service provider disappears. Four roles are involved: 1. **User:** Retains ultimate fund control via the Withdrawal Credential. 2. **Wallet:** Acts as an interface for managing permissions, not an asset owner. 3. **Node Service Provider:** Manages validator operation (Signing Key), carrying risks related to performance and slashing, but not fund theft. 4. **Ethereum Protocol:** Governs the immutable rules for activation, exit, and withdrawal. The piece contrasts this with Liquid Staking like Lido. Users receive a liquid token (e.g., stETH) representing a claim on pooled staked ETH, enabling DeFi composability. However, they do not control individual validator withdrawal credentials; redemption relies on the protocol's withdrawal queue. This trades direct control for liquidity and lower entry barriers. The conclusion is pragmatic: Liquid staking suits users with smaller amounts or high liquidity needs. For long-term holders with 32+ ETH, where yield differentials are minimal, the security model and direct control of a non-custodial, native stake become paramount. The essential question shifts from "What's the APR?" to "Who holds the keys to my staked ETH?"

marsbitHá 13m

Beyond APR: After Staking, Who Really Owns Your ETH?

marsbitHá 13m

Riemann Hypothesis Pushed to 99.55% of Theoretical Boundary: Meta-Architecture AI Reshapes Its 'Brain' Through Thinking

When we marvel at large language models writing poems or coding, scientists face a more challenging question: how can AI tackle complex, long-term scientific problems that require months or years of sustained, uncertain reasoning? Traditional AI approaches use a fixed architecture—like forcing a mathematician, physicist, and engineer to share the same brain. While versatile, such a system often lacks specialization for specific, complex tasks. Recently, an international academic team introduced the Eureka framework, a groundbreaking solution. Instead of a fixed brain, Eureka allows AI to dynamically grow task-specific architectures during problem-solving—creating the optimal dedicated brain for each challenge. In rigorous testing, Eureka completed all 170 complex recursive long-horizon tasks, generating 3,948 verifiable certificates without a single instance of erroneous self-approval or false completion. Eureka demonstrated remarkable adaptability across two distinct scientific challenges: 1. Advancing the Riemann Hypothesis: For this mathematical milestone, Eureka constructed a specialized agent that expanded the scope of a key proof path—local Weil quadratic form positivity—from a ≤ 1/4 to a ≤ 69/200 (0.345). This reaches 99.55% of the theoretical first barrier, representing a significant, verifiable step forward. 2. Reconstructing Physical Theory: In exploring quantum processes and spacetime theory, Eureka generated a theory-discovery agent. It produced five progressive structural findings, rigorously proving that behavioral equivalence does not imply essential equivalence—providing a stricter standard for comparing physical theories. Why Fixed Architectures Fall Short: Predefined AI structures—whether single- or multi-agent—are efficient for known problems but struggle with the long-term uncertainty and structural variability of scientific discovery. They face issues like architecture mismatch and planning failures when early assumptions are invalidated. The Eureka Approach: A Meta-Architecture for Self-Evolution Eureka integrates task execution and brain shaping. Its workflow includes: - Dynamic task compilation into a flexible "obligation graph." - Identifying "architectural hotspots" where specific tools, memory, or collaboration patterns are repeatedly needed. - "Architectural promotion": compiling dedicated "macro-agents" with their own memory, tools, verification standards, and workflows to handle specialized subproblems. - Controlled self-evolution: upgrading macro-agents only when benefits clearly outweigh costs. Results and Outlook: Eureka reduced core contextual overhead by 57.8% and avoided 65.38% of redundant computations. In concurrent testing with 16,000 tasks, it ensured perfect consistency with sequential execution, eliminating data conflicts. This approach paves the way for AI in high-difficulty scientific domains—accelerating mathematical research, aiding theoretical physics discovery, and managing large-scale engineering problems like chip design or drug development. Eureka represents a paradigm shift: future AI capability may depend less on model scale and more on dynamic, task-aware brain shaping.

marsbitHá 19m

Riemann Hypothesis Pushed to 99.55% of Theoretical Boundary: Meta-Architecture AI Reshapes Its 'Brain' Through Thinking

marsbitHá 19m

Want to Buy a Dog? Buy NVIDIA First: Are Equity Memes the Engine of This Bull Market?

The article explores the emergence of "stock-meme" coins on the Robinhood Chain, a new trend where meme tokens like Artificial Inu are paired directly with tokenized stocks like Nvidia (NVDA). This mechanism forces trading activity for otherwise static tokenized equities. The narrative suggests this fusion could be a catalyst for the next crypto bull market, akin to how ETFs brought traditional finance capital last cycle. However, the model faces critical challenges. A case study involving HIMS stock tokens revealed a 460% premium over the real stock price on a weekend, exposing a fundamental flaw: token supply is controlled by a single authorized participant who can only mint new tokens when the underlying stock market is open. This leaves the 24/7 crypto market vulnerable to disconnection from real-world pricing and liquidity. Data analysis shows frenetic but shallow activity: 61% of wallets are one-day users, bots generate over half the trading volume, and median transaction sizes are small. While tokenized stock holders increased 155% in 30 days, regulatory uncertainty and geographic restrictions (blocking US, Canada, UK users) limit new capital inflow. The article concludes that while "stock-memes" can ignite short-term hype, their sustainability as a "bull market engine" depends on attracting genuine external capital rather than just recycling existing crypto funds.

marsbitHá 19m

Want to Buy a Dog? Buy NVIDIA First: Are Equity Memes the Engine of This Bull Market?

marsbitHá 19m

Trading

Spot
活动图片