odds for TDF

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Fred Fredburger said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <[email hidden]> 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!

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Fred Fredburger said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <[email hidden]> 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.

Fred Fredburger schreef:

Quoted message said:

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

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 23, 7:45 am, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

On Jun 22, 10:36 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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 -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> thanks,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> K. Gringioni.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

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.

On Jun 23, 10:42 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Dumbass -

In your second post in this thread said:

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 said:

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.

Fred Fredburger said:

Yes, unless reality is real, you are correct.

Which one ?

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 23, 10:42 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Dumbass -

In your second post in this thread said:

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 said:

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

In article
<[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.

Quoted message said:

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.

Of course, I'm a bigger dumbass than either of you for taking the time
to correct the original poster's message to make a finer point about
his personal assessment of the odds on offer, when we all probably
knew what he meant in the first place.

You speak of bookmakers handicapping the events, and
betting their own money on the outcome. Not saying it
does not happen. I am sure that larger bookmakers handicap
events to set initial odds based on their experience with
the betting public. Their best bet is to balance money
wagered by bettors and collect their percentage. When a
bookmaker gets hit by heavy money on one side he has the
option to lay off bets to a bigger bookmaker (and pay to
do the lay off.) Do stockbrokers bet their own money?
Sure, when they have inside information. But sometimes
the inside information is not theirs to use, and get their
knuckles rapped when found out. Bookmakers need to be
particularly careful whose information they are trading on.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

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.

There is often a systematic, non-random misunderstanding
of the situation among the betting public. Bookmakers
set odds based on money coming in. They set initial odds
based on their initial assessment of the betting public.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes, I was disappointed to read that too, but I agree with you, he
won't quit if he's well placed in the GC. Besides Liquigas will
probably want to annoy Lampre and Cunego as much as they can !

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

DIdn't Mayo get cleared ?

Quoted message said:

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

DIdn't Mayo get cleared ?

I'm talking about what happened to Mayo after winning the Dauphine in 2004.
Not exactly a stellar performance in the TdF.

Lance did with both (Dauphine and TdF in 2002 & 2003).

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

"Keith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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.

DIdn't Mayo get cleared ?

Quoted message said:

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

On Jun 24, 10:45 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 23, 10:42 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

In your second post in this thread, you wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

then in the previous post you wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Dumbass -

I do not agree with that.

The betting odds only model the *bettors' perception* of what the
contest will be. Sometimes the bettors' perception and reality do not
coincide.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 24, 10:45 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jun 24, 1:38 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 23, 10:42 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In your second post in this thread, you wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then in the previous post you wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those 2 statements don't go together. The reason my friend makes money
is that the odds *don't* get adjusted.

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

Dumbass -

I do not agree with that.

The betting odds only model the *bettors' perception* of what the
contest will be.

I don't agree with that - specifically the *only* part of the
sentence. A model of bettors' perceptions, assuming they are not
complete dumbasses, will correlate highly with an accurate model of
the actual probabilities.

Yes, I know there are many, many dumbasses in the world. I do read
r.b.r, after all. But I maintain that, much more often than not,
there will be a similar proportion of dumbasses on either side of a
particular betting line. And, even when there is some systematic
difference, I think it's often likely to be small.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes the bettors' perception and reality do not
coincide.

No sensible person could disagree with this statement in an absolute
sense. The question is one of degree. If you were a Martian, just
arrived on Earth, who wanted to know the likelihood of a particular
Earthling's chances in the Tour, you probably could not find a better
method of prediction than the bookmakers' odds.

Having said that, I'm forced to admit that the Martian in my example
would be horribly wrong if he decided to bet on Boonen to win at 80:1
(or whatever those odds were).

-rj

P.S. Question: If he hadn't tooted blow and been caught, where would
you set Boonen's chances to win the Tour? Small as they are, they
can't be zero.

On Jun 25, 8:43 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

P.S.  Question:  If he hadn't tooted blow and been caught, where would
you set Boonen's chances to win the Tour?  Small as they are, they
can't be zero

We don't know what form of administration Boonen used so there you go
again making wild and crazy assumptions. He could have just had a
really bad bloody nose.

Odds of Boonen winning the tour (TIOOYK) even if he's in the race are
1 / infinity

Quoted message said:

On Jun 25, 8:43 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

P.S.  Question:  If he hadn't tooted blow and been caught, where would
you set Boonen's chances to win the Tour?  Small as they are, they
can't be zero

We don't know what form of administration Boonen used so there you go
again making wild and crazy assumptions. He could have just had a
really bad bloody nose.

Odds of Boonen winning the tour (TIOOYK) even if he's in the race are
1 / infinity

Dumbass -

I gotta agree with that.

For Ronaldo Jeremiah - I think the majority of bettors are dumbasses.
Just my opinion, but that's also why I come to the conclusion about
the oddsmakers' results.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Does CSF Group Navigare participate?
If not - why?

If they participate I'd give Emanuele Sella better chance of winning
than majority of the list above. This year's Tour is ideally suited
for him: no north-east hell stages, no windy Atlantics. Really, there
is only one stage (Figeac to Toulouse) of the type in which he
normally fails. Add to that relatively short TTs and you see the great
opportunity for Sella that will never be repeated.

Quoted message said:

Does CSF Group Navigare participate?
If not - why?

If they participate I'd give Emanuele Sella better chance of winning
than majority of the list above. This year's Tour is ideally suited
for him: no north-east hell stages, no  windy Atlantics. Really, there
is only one stage (Figeac to Toulouse) of the type in which he
normally fails. Add to that relatively short TTs and you see the great
opportunity for Sella that will never be repeated.

Dumbass -

I want to thank you for proving Kurgan and co. correct, and myself
wrong, on the issue of betting odds and the general public.

-rj