F
Fred Fredburger
Guest
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:45 am, Fred Fredburger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>>> <[email protected]> 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!
> On Jun 23, 7:45 am, Fred Fredburger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>>> <[email protected]> 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!