odds for TDF

ronaldo_jeremiah

On Jun 23, 3:58*am, Ted van de Weteringe
<myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> Andre schreef:
>
> >> No way those are top ten odds. *They look like win odds. *Besides,
> >> what bookmakers offer top ten odds? *(That's not to say they couldn't,
> >> just that it would be unusual.)
>
> >> What is your source for these?
>
> >http://www.betbrain.com/oddsOvervie...ur_de_France_20...
>
> If you click on the TopX link, you'll those are podium odds.

That makes sense.

-rj

Fred Fredburger

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>
>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>>
>>> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
>>> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
>>> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
>>> as much the likelihood of winning.
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
>> it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
>> the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
>> instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
>> with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
>> touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
>> take over time is self-evident.
>>
>> He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
>> an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
>> from the overly rabid fans of the big school.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>
>
> You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. If the odds are
> off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
> it, and the odds will have to be adjusted. Given sufficient time and
> bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
> they aren't that in the first place. But, they probably will be that
> in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
> good information and are in the business of making good odds. If they
> couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
> they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
> exact same thing. Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
> good model of the actual probabilities.

Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.

Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
perceive them.

These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.

Keith

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:11:00 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> No, I think they have the Evans/Valverde thing correct. Evans has a very
>> cool head on his shoulders, and he'll do what needs to be done. Valverde
>> is far more likely to overdo it and blow up. Give Valverde a year or two.
>> For the time being, Evans is the "safe" bet, and this is a betting line,
>> after all.
>
>A few weeks ago I would have said Valverde can't TT. I seem to
>recall "Who would have thought x could TT like that" was a rbr
>code.

Actually that was my topic "Contador can ITT"...well there you go,
Valverde and Contador the two guys who would be out of a job if they
raced in Germany or Italy courtesy of Fuentes...

wscott@udel.edu

> That Kreunzinger guy who just won the TDS is pretty impressive too,
> might be a big surprise if he can last in the race.


Appears surprised by his TdS form and is only planning on doing half
the Tour before pulling out. But one would assume if he is high in
the GC he won't pack up early.

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 23, 7:45*am, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>
> >> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>
> >>> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
> >>> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
> >>> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
> >>> as much the likelihood of winning.
> >> Dumbass -
>
> >> I agree.
>
> >> Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
> >> it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
> >> the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
> >> instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
> >> with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
> >> touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
> >> take over time is self-evident.
>
> >> He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
> >> an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
> >> from the overly rabid fans of the big school.
>
> >> thanks,
>
> >> K. Gringioni.
>
> > You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. *If the odds are
> > off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
> > it, and the odds will have to be adjusted. *Given sufficient time and
> > bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
> > they aren't that in the first place. *But, they probably will be that
> > in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
> > good information and are in the business of making good odds. *If they
> > couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
> > they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
> > exact same thing. *Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
> > good model of the actual probabilities.
>
> Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
> over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.
>
> Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
> perceive them.
>
> These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
> perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
> will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
> out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.



Dumbass -


Thanks for taking the time to do even that. I didn't feel like
pointing out what he missed.


K. Gringioni.

Fred Fredburger

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:45 am, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>>>>> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
>>>>> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
>>>>> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
>>>>> as much the likelihood of winning.
>>>> Dumbass -
>>>> I agree.
>>>> Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
>>>> it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
>>>> the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
>>>> instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
>>>> with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
>>>> touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
>>>> take over time is self-evident.
>>>> He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
>>>> an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
>>>> from the overly rabid fans of the big school.
>>>> thanks,
>>>> K. Gringioni.
>>> You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. If the odds are
>>> off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
>>> it, and the odds will have to be adjusted. Given sufficient time and
>>> bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
>>> they aren't that in the first place. But, they probably will be that
>>> in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
>>> good information and are in the business of making good odds. If they
>>> couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
>>> they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
>>> exact same thing. Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
>>> good model of the actual probabilities.
>> Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
>> over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.
>>
>> Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
>> perceive them.
>>
>> These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
>> perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
>> will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
>> out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to do even that. I didn't feel like
> pointing out what he missed.

I just noticed that betfair is taking on Tom Boonen winning the tour at
80:1. Great odds!

Fred Fredburger

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:45 am, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>>>>> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
>>>>> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
>>>>> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
>>>>> as much the likelihood of winning.
>>>> Dumbass -
>>>> I agree.
>>>> Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
>>>> it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
>>>> the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
>>>> instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
>>>> with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
>>>> touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
>>>> take over time is self-evident.
>>>> He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
>>>> an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
>>>> from the overly rabid fans of the big school.
>>>> thanks,
>>>> K. Gringioni.
>>> You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. If the odds are
>>> off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
>>> it, and the odds will have to be adjusted. Given sufficient time and
>>> bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
>>> they aren't that in the first place. But, they probably will be that
>>> in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
>>> good information and are in the business of making good odds. If they
>>> couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
>>> they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
>>> exact same thing. Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
>>> good model of the actual probabilities.
>> Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
>> over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.
>>
>> Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
>> perceive them.
>>
>> These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
>> perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
>> will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
>> out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to do even that. I didn't feel like
> pointing out what he missed.

I just noticed that betfair has Tom Boonen at 80:1 for winning the Tour.

Ted van de Weteringe

Fred Fredburger schreef:
> I just noticed that betfair has Tom Boonen at 80:1 for winning the Tour.

Bar price? I will offer a million to 1, no limit.

Cheers,
Jeff Wayne

ronaldo_jeremiah

On Jun 23, 11:43*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:45*am, Fred Fredburger
>
>
>
>
>
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
> > ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>
> > >> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>
> > >>> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
> > >>> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some ofthem
> > >>> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
> > >>> as much the likelihood of winning.
> > >> Dumbass -
>
> > >> I agree.
>
> > >> Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
> > >> it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
> > >> the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
> > >> instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
> > >> with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
> > >> touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
> > >> take over time is self-evident.
>
> > >> He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
> > >> an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
> > >> from the overly rabid fans of the big school.
>
> > >> thanks,
>
> > >> K. Gringioni.
>
> > > You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. *If the odds are
> > > off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
> > > it, and the odds will have to be adjusted. *Given sufficient time and
> > > bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
> > > they aren't that in the first place. *But, they probably will be that
> > > in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
> > > good information and are in the business of making good odds. *If they
> > > couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
> > > they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
> > > exact same thing. *Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
> > > good model of the actual probabilities.
>
> > Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
> > over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.
>
> > Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
> > perceive them.
>
> > These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
> > perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
> > will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
> > out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Thanks for taking the time to do even that. I didn't feel like
> pointing out what he missed.
>
> K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




WTF are you guys missing here?

-Of course bookies are concerned with bettors' perception. No
disagreement there. That's obvious.

-Of course individual bettors' perception of the odds will differ from
what we might call "perfect information" odds due to stupid factors
like team allegiances and, um, plain stupidity. If there weren't such
individual differences in perception, there would never be any betting
at all.

None of us disagree on any of that, so far as I can tell.

The point I was trying to make - not sure why, but I was - is that the
bookmaker's odds will, by default, tend to converge on a "perfect
information" model. (In fact, this is the whole principle behind
political betting markets).

Using the example from above, the reason Kurgan's friend can win money
betting on football is because his mental model for ND's chances is
better than that of stupid ND fans who bet the team because it is
"their" team. If Kurgan's friend and others like him see that
discrepancy between ND bettors and their own superior model of
reality, they exploit it by making a bet of their own. If any sizable
number of them do this, the bookies may be forced to change the line
to ensure an even number of bets on both sides of the line. (We seem
to agree on most of this, I think.) Unless there is a systematic, non-
random misunderstanding of the situation among the betting public, the
odds will converge on an accurate model of reality.

The betting line is simply a market, and a very pure one at that.

I'm not sure what I wrote, or what you dumbasses misunderstood, that
has you thinking I am taking some kind of postmodern-relativist
nonsense position on sporting odds, perception, and reality.

-rj

Fred Fredburger

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:


> Unless there is a systematic, non-
> random misunderstanding of the situation among the betting public, the
> odds will converge on an accurate model of reality.

Yes, unless reality is real, you are correct.

Mike Jacoubowsky

>>> This is reasonably accurate...except I don't think Cunego and Sastre
>>> will place that high. And I would replace A. Schleck with Kirchen. And
>>> move Valverde ahead of Evans the wheel sucker.
>>
>>No, I think they have the Evans/Valverde thing correct. Evans has a very
>>cool head on his shoulders, and he'll do what needs to be done. Valverde
>>is
>>far more likely to overdo it and blow up. Give Valverde a year or two. For
>>the time being, Evans is the "safe" bet, and this is a betting line, after
>>all.
>
> Based on the Dauphiné, Valverde has either made big ITT progress or
> he's in excellent shape, he's a better climber than Evans too.

Don't forget the Mayo-malaise.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c2ut549s1cb872fij0te0vqdt23g5rmgrd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:37:34 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>>> This is reasonably accurate...except I don't think Cunego and Sastre
>>> will place that high. And I would replace A. Schleck with Kirchen. And
>>> move Valverde ahead of Evans the wheel sucker.
>>
>>No, I think they have the Evans/Valverde thing correct. Evans has a very
>>cool head on his shoulders, and he'll do what needs to be done. Valverde
>>is
>>far more likely to overdo it and blow up. Give Valverde a year or two. For
>>the time being, Evans is the "safe" bet, and this is a betting line, after
>>all.
>
> Based on the Dauphiné, Valverde has either made big ITT progress or
> he's in excellent shape, he's a better climber than Evans too.
>
> That Kreunzinger guy who just won the TDS is pretty impressive too,
> might be a big surprise if he can last in the race.

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 23, 10:42*am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com>
wrote:



Dumbass -

In your second post in this thread, you wrote:

> You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. If the odds are
> off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
> it, and the odds will have to be adjusted.

then in the previous post you wrote:

> Using the example from above, the reason Kurgan's friend can win money
> betting on football is because his mental model for ND's chances is
> better than that of stupid ND fans


Those 2 statements don't go together. The reason my friend makes money
is that the odds *don't* get adjusted. There are so many stupid ND
fans out there that they outnumber those who are more realistic and so
the oddsmakers have to make the spread unrealistically large to get an
equal amount of action on both ND and their opponent.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Donald Munro

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Yes, unless reality is real, you are correct.

Which one ?

ronaldo_jeremiah

On Jun 24, 1:38*am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:42*am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dumbass -
>
> In your second post in this thread, you wrote:
>
> > You guys are dumbasses, and are just making my point. *If the odds are
> > off, someone with knowledge of that fact will come along and exploit
> > it, and the odds will have to be adjusted.
>
> then in the previous post you wrote:
>
> > Using the example from above, the reason Kurgan's friend can win money
> > betting on football is because his mental model for ND's chances is
> > better than that of stupid ND fans
>
> Those 2 statements don't go together. The reason my friend makes money
> is that the odds *don't* get adjusted.

Dumbass -

They do after he makes his bet, if his bet is substantial.

The statements above are not contradictory. The odds can and do
change in response to betting activity. A good bookmaker will set the
odds well to begin with, though, so that he won't have to make
frequent or large adjustments.

Though there may be special cases (Notre Dame being a good example)
where one side is particularly irrational, more often there will be a
similar amount of irrationality/stupidity on both sides of a betting
line. On the whole, irrationality/stupidity is orthogonal to betting
allegiance.

It's an obvious statement that betting odds will, on the whole, model
the contest on which they are based. Surely you agree with that?

-rj