odds for TDF

In article
,
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.

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

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:42:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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 !

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:03:33 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
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.

Don't forget the Mayo-malaise.

DIdn't Mayo get cleared ?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

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

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" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:03:33 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
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.

Don't forget the Mayo-malaise.

DIdn't Mayo get cleared ?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

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
wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:38*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:





On Jun 23, 10:42*am, ronaldo_jeremiah
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?



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.

On Jun 25, 3:54*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:45*am, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:





On Jun 24, 1:38*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 23, 10:42*am, ronaldo_jeremiah
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?

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.

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
wrote:

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

On Jun 25, 5:53*pm, wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:43*pm, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:

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.

On Jun 27, 9:11*am, wrote:
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