#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
odds for TDF
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
odds | Andre | Racing | 1 | January 27th 08 01:01 AM |
odds | Andre | Racing | 0 | July 6th 07 03:05 AM |
Odds | ronaldo_jeremiah | Racing | 0 | June 27th 06 08:53 PM |
odds | Andre | Racing | 1 | February 19th 06 10:23 AM |
OMG, what are the odds? | Frugal Joe | Mountain Biking | 14 | June 30th 05 04:27 AM |