Moxie629 said:
DarthFed said:
For that Stan one it means this: For every $13 you bet, you will win $6 profit ($19 total) if Stan wins. That comes out to Stan as just below a 70% favorite. Meanwhile for Gasquet for every $10 you put in the bettor would win $17 ($27 total). This puts his odds at about 37%. If I was betting on that match I'd be in on Stan with the thought that he was better than a 7/10 favorite.
This seems a terrible scheme. If Gasquet has only 37% chance to win, and I would only win $17 on a $10 bet? That just sounds like poor judgement, and a waste of $10.
:laydownlaughing I'm sort of kidding, but thanks for explaining.
what i usually like to emphasize on this is that the usual bettor behavior is a massively important factor in the bookies' calculations (actually, much more important than something like a strenuous five-setter in the semis). even if their experts/programs would see Stan as an 80% favorite, they might have to shift from that number if too many bettors go the other way.
so often times, the odds are 'off' because the majority of the bettors aren't behaving 'accurately'; most of them don't specialize in tennis and aren't enthusiasts like us, and will just go with the higher seed or the historic favorite. remember, there's people in Bangkok betting on second tier WTA matches who have never even seen Sharapova play. so often, it's the bettors that are forgetting/ignoring the extra circumstances. so that can shift the risk for the bookies, and they adapt the odds thusly.
imagine a match of Serena Williams and Werena Silliams, who are identical in every way but the name. knowing the facts, the bookies would give them the same odds - but if more money gets placed on Serena (because peopleknow the name), then in turn, the bookies have to start adapting, and make Serena the favorite, because their payout risk if she wins would increase disproportionally otherwise.
as Darth said - it's all about balancing the money.
classic example was the only real bet i ever placed (i have friends who are betting enthusiasts, but i don't like playing for/with money):
at the AO '11 SF, Fed was the bookies' clear favorite versus Novak. now, while Fed had avenged the USO loss with three straight wins, all of these came on the fast hards of the fall, whereas the AO was (as it still is) obviously Novak's strongest surface. furthermore, Novak really built up steam during the AO, and you could tell he was confident from the Davis Cup win, while Fed's form wasn't really convincing (including the 2R vs Simon). the bookies probably would've factored all of that in. it was a close call - maybe 50-50, maybe the slightest tendency in one direction. but i reckon that a big number of people were still going with Fed, simply because of his ranking and his name, which is why the bookies had to shift the odds in his favor - and which is why i ended up with a 16 € profit on the 10 € i bet (got back 26€ total).
to me (as to any avid fan like us), betting on Novak was clearly a great deal.
