Loading...
At the 2022 World Cup, Morocco were 81.00 to reach the semi-final. They made it. Japan were 6.50 to top their group. They did it. Both results looked absurd before kickoff and obvious in hindsight — which is exactly what a value bet feels like when it lands. The 2026 World Cup offers a deeper pool of these opportunities than any previous tournament, because 48 teams and 104 matches mean more markets, more pricing inefficiencies, and more moments where the bookmaker’s number does not match reality. I have identified the value bets below by comparing TAB NZ implied probabilities against my own modelled estimates, and every selection shares the same trait: the price is higher than it should be.
What Makes a Value Bet?
A friend once told me he found “value” in backing Brazil at 1.40 to beat Haiti. I had to explain why that was not value — it was a short-priced favourite that would win most of the time but pay almost nothing when it did. Value is not about picking winners. Value is about finding prices where the bookmaker has set the odds higher than the true probability warrants. If you believe a team has a 30% chance of winning a match and the market prices them at 4.50 (implying 22.2%), that gap between 30% and 22.2% is your edge. Over enough bets, consistently finding that gap is the only way to turn a profit.
The formula is straightforward. Convert the decimal odds into implied probability by dividing 1 by the odds. Compare that implied probability to your own estimated probability. If your estimate is higher than the implied figure, the bet has positive expected value (+EV). If your estimate is lower, the price is too short — walk away.
| Concept | Formula | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Implied probability | 1 / decimal odds x 100 | 1 / 4.50 x 100 = 22.2% |
| Expected value (per $1) | (Your probability x odds) – 1 | (0.30 x 4.50) – 1 = +0.35 |
| Value threshold | Your probability > implied probability | 30% > 22.2% = value |
The tricky part is estimating the “true” probability. I use a blend of FIFA rankings, Elo ratings, recent competitive form (last 12 months of results, weighted by opponent quality), squad market value as a proxy for talent, and historical World Cup performance. None of these inputs are perfect alone, but combined they produce a probability estimate that disagrees with the bookmaker often enough to be useful. The value bets below each show the TAB NZ implied probability alongside my estimated probability, so you can see exactly where the gap sits.
One critical caveat: value does not mean certainty. A bet with +EV will still lose more often than it wins if the true probability is below 50%. The discipline of value betting is placing the bet regardless of the result, trusting the process over multiple selections, and accepting short-term losses for long-term gain. That mindset separates punters who grind out a profit from those who chase results.
Outright Value — Teams Priced Too High
The outright market is where the biggest pricing gaps live, because the bookmaker has to set odds on 48 teams across a seven-week tournament with compounding uncertainty at every stage. Here are three outright selections where I believe the TAB NZ price significantly underrates the team’s chances.
Spain at 9.00 is the standout outright value bet of the tournament. The implied probability at 9.00 is 11.1%, but I estimate Spain’s true probability of winning the World Cup closer to 14–15%. The discrepancy exists because the market still treats Spain as a “young team building toward something” rather than a team that already won Euro 2024 with a squad averaging 25 years old. Pedri, Gavi, Lamine Yamal and Nico Williams form a creative engine that no defence in world football has solved consistently, and La Roja’s tactical flexibility — they can play possession-based or direct, high-press or mid-block — makes them adaptable to any opponent. Group H (Cape Verde, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay) is demanding but navigable, and the bracket from a Group H first-place finish positions them well. At 9.00, the gap between market price and true probability is roughly 3–4%, which over a single bet equates to a positive expected value of around $0.30–$0.40 per dollar staked.
Netherlands at 15.00 carry similar characteristics. The implied probability at 15.00 is 6.7%, while I put their actual chance at 8–9%. The Oranje have a deep squad, a tactical system that suits tournament football (compact, transition-based, physically imposing), and a Group F draw (Japan, Sweden, Tunisia) that tests them without overwhelming them. The market discounts the Netherlands because they have not won a World Cup despite reaching three finals — a narrative penalty rather than a structural weakness. Their 2022 quarter-final exit to Argentina on penalties was as close as it gets, and the squad has added depth since. At 15.00, a $10 bet returns $150 if they win, and I believe that price is 20–30% too generous.
Belgium at 21.00 is the value play that hits closest to home for NZ punters. Yes, the golden generation is fading. Yes, De Bruyne is 35 by the time the tournament starts. But Belgium still have enough quality to win Group G, navigate a favourable knockout bracket, and make a run to the quarter-final or beyond. The 21.00 price implies a 4.8% chance, and I estimate their actual probability closer to 6–7%. That is not a massive gap, but the odds magnify small probability differences — a 2% edge at 21.00 translates to significant expected value. Belgium are not my pick to win the tournament, but the price makes them a worthwhile speculative outright bet.
| Team | Outright Odds | Implied Probability | My Estimated Probability | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9.00 | 11.1% | 14–15% | +3–4% |
| Netherlands | 15.00 | 6.7% | 8–9% | +1.3–2.3% |
| Belgium | 21.00 | 4.8% | 6–7% | +1.2–2.2% |
Group Stage Value — Qualification Longshots
The group qualification market is where I find the highest density of value bets at any World Cup. The bookmaker prices 48 teams across 12 groups, many of which involve nations with limited betting market liquidity — meaning prices are set with wider margins and less precision. Here are three group stage qualification bets that stand out.
Colombia to qualify from Group K at 1.65 is underpriced. Group K contains Portugal (1.50 to top the group), DR Congo, Uzbekistan and Colombia. The market treats Portugal as the clear favourite and Colombia as a competitive but secondary threat. My issue with that framing: Colombia reached the 2024 Copa América final, beat Germany 2-1 in a friendly, and have a squad (Luis Díaz, Jhon Durán, Richard Ríos) that matches most European sides for quality. Portugal without Ronaldo in peak form are still dangerous, but they are not the 2016 Euro or 2022 World Cup Portugal — they are a team in transition. Colombia’s 1.65 to qualify implies a 60.6% probability, and I put it closer to 70%, which creates a solid value edge on a relatively short-priced bet.
Japan to qualify from Group F at 1.90 is the second selection. Group F is Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Tunisia — a balanced group with no clear weak link. The market has Netherlands as heavy favourite (1.70 to top it) and Japan second at 1.90 to qualify. Japan beat both Germany and Spain in the 2022 group stage, and their squad has only improved since — Mitoma, Kubo and Kamada are regular starters in England’s Premier League, Spain’s La Liga and Serie A respectively. Sweden, who qualified through the UEFA play-off, are a physical but limited side, and Tunisia lack the firepower to trouble Japan consistently. At 1.90, Japan’s qualification is implied at 52.6%. I put it at 60–65%, driven by their superior individual quality compared to Sweden and Tunisia, making this one of the cleanest group stage value plays on the board.
New Zealand to qualify from Group G at 5.50 is the speculative end of this section. The implied probability at 5.50 is 18.2%, and I estimate the true figure at 12–15%. So technically, this is not a value bet by my model — the market is generous but not quite generous enough. I include it because the emotional pull for NZ punters is enormous, and the path to qualification is clear even if narrow: beat Iran, draw with Egypt, and hope the three points (or four) are enough for a best third-place spot. If you are placing this bet, you are paying a small premium for the experience of having money on the All Whites at the World Cup. That premium might be worth it for reasons that transcend expected value — just understand that the maths are marginally against you.
Player Markets — Top Scorer Value
Last tournament, Cody Gakpo opened at 41.00 to be top scorer and finished with three group stage goals before the Netherlands were eliminated. He did not win the Golden Boot, but anyone who backed him each-way collected a profit. Player markets are where tournament volatility works in your favour, because individual performances are even harder to predict than team results.
Julián Álvarez at 17.00 is my top scorer value pick. Argentina’s likely deep run gives him maximum matches, and his role in the team is explicitly goal-focused — he plays as the central striker with Messi (if selected) or another creator feeding him. At the 2022 World Cup, Álvarez scored four goals and was the most consistent attacking threat in Argentina’s run to the final. He has since moved to a top European club and improved his finishing in front of goal. The 17.00 price implies a 5.9% chance, and I estimate it closer to 8%, based on Argentina’s projected tournament path (six or seven matches) and his expected minutes per game.
Bukayo Saka at 21.00 offers similar upside. England’s predicted deep run (quarter-final or better in my model) gives him five to seven matches, and his role on the right wing puts him in goalscoring positions consistently. Saka scored three goals at Euro 2024 from an advanced attacking position, and England’s tactical setup channels play through his side. The 21.00 price implies 4.8%, and I model it at around 6–7%. The gap is smaller than Álvarez but the odds are longer, meaning the payout justifies the thinner edge.
Mohamed Salah at 34.00 is the dark horse pick for the top scorer. Egypt’s Group G path gives him three group matches — including one against New Zealand, where Salah’s quality differential is enormous — and potential knockout fixtures if Egypt advance. At 34.00, the implied probability is 2.9%. My estimate sits at 3.5–4%, driven by Egypt’s realistic chance of qualifying from Group G (I price them at roughly 55% to advance) and Salah’s proven goalscoring rate in high-pressure matches. This is a high-variance selection, but the price compensates for the risk.
| Player | Odds | Implied Probability | My Estimate | Projected Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julián Álvarez | 17.00 | 5.9% | ~8% | 6–7 |
| Bukayo Saka | 21.00 | 4.8% | ~6.5% | 5–7 |
| Mohamed Salah | 34.00 | 2.9% | ~3.7% | 3–5 |
Staking It Right
Finding value is half the job. The other half is deciding how much to put on each selection, and this is where most punters — including experienced ones — get it wrong. The natural instinct is to stake more on the bets you feel most confident about, but confidence and probability are not the same thing. A bet you feel strongly about at 9.00 (Spain outright) might still lose 85% of the time.
I use a flat staking approach for tournament value bets: allocate a total budget for the World Cup (say $200), divide it across the number of bets I want to place (say 10), and put $20 on each selection regardless of odds or confidence level. This removes the emotional weighting that leads to oversized bets on “feel good” picks — like backing the All Whites for $50 because it feels right — and ensures that the mathematical edge, not the emotional pull, drives the return.
An alternative is proportional staking, where you adjust the bet size based on the estimated edge. A $30 bet on Spain at 9.00 (estimated 4% edge) and a $15 bet on Belgium at 21.00 (estimated 2% edge) allocates more capital to the higher-confidence selection. This approach maximises expected value but requires genuine precision in your probability estimates — if your model is off by 2%, the staking allocation amplifies the error rather than smoothing it. For most punters, flat staking is simpler and safer, and the discipline it enforces is worth more than the marginal EV gain from proportional staking.
Across all the World Cup 2026 value bets on this page, the consistent thread is disciplined assessment: compare the market’s implied probability to your own estimate, look for gaps of 2% or more, and stake accordingly. The betting pillar provides broader context on markets, legal considerations for NZ punters, and strategies that tie these individual value picks into a coherent tournament approach. Value is a process, not a single bet — and the 2026 World Cup gives you 104 matches to apply it.