Betting odds - irrelevant?

[Millsy]

We talk about it so much, but why?

I can't see that this has been mentioned elsewhere but its probably because I'm blind as well as simple. Trawling through megathreads isnt easy.

It's just that today I happened to be at home and listened to this chappie on BBC Berks form William Hill. Now I've never betted in my life as I don't do that sort of thing so forgive the naivety but the interview was, for me at least, quite interesting. When questioned about any possible inside knowledge the WH guy completely refuted it saying the odds go COMPLETELY on what people bet. No inside knowledge, no inkling, nothing. Just purely a case of who put what money on whom. What's more, with the relatively insignificant news of little Reading's next manager, the sums are so small that it doesn't take much to sway either way.

Which makes me wonder why we are getting so excited about slight fluctuations in odds as though it's seem sort of a sign? It ain't. Granted, it's the only thig we really have to go on as no one is really in the know, and granted they stopped taking bets re: Brian's sacking but that was only just before the sacking. It seems it's only of note when bets stop, in which case we'll be in the know within hours anyway. PDC is a prime example of the futility of bothering with the odds.

I just wonder why people make so much of a deal about it. Is it really the case that odds might be changing because of a few ITKers' bets?

Just thought it'd be an interesting thread, something a little different, whilst we wait in boredom for the club to tell us something....

(Mods if this belongs within the next manager thread put it in there, I just didn't want to hijack it with something a little different. )

[winchester_royal]

I just wonder why people make so much of a deal about it. Is it really the case that odds might be changing because of a few ITKers' bets?

Yes, basically.

The first signs we had that McDermott had gone was when his odds started tumbling and ultimately betting was suspended. It's never a sure thing, obviously, but at the moment it's as good an indicator as any we have to go on.

[Rax]

Interesting post - think the bottom line is any "bet" has to achieve the best result for the bookie. So if they see masses of money lumped on Di Canio, the odds will shorten accordingly - same with then money put on Adkins will see his odds shorten and DIC's lengthen. All the bookies do is juggle the odds about to generate the maximum return for them - they really don't give a toss who the next manager is!!!

[akranes]

I just wonder why people make so much of a deal about it. Is it really the case that odds might be changing because of a few ITKers' bets?

Yes, basically.

The first signs we had that McDermott had gone was when his odds started tumbling and ultimately betting was suspended. It's never a sure thing, obviously, but at the moment it's as good an indicator as any we have to go on.

That's the reason it's currently being watched obviously. And we'll see if they get it right again....

However we saw what happened with the betting when McDermott was supposed to take over at Wolves, he was favourite for a long time IIRC.

[Royal With Cheese]

As someone who doesn't bet they're completely irrelevant to me.

[akranes]

As someone who doesn't bet they're completely irrelevant to me.

Surely whether you bet or not is irrelevant....

[Maguire]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

[Maguire]

^^ Which isn't to say that people aren't backing eg. Adkins because they know something, it's just that the bookies are running a book, not an expectation of what will happen

[akranes]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

So, basically, Kebe is being Kebe.

[Ouroboros]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

Except that they have to offer odds before bets are placed, so there is a judgement on outcomes at that stage - it's just reactive to their liability from then on.

[Maguire]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

Except that they have to offer odds before bets are placed, so there is a judgement on outcomes at that stage - it's just reactive to their liability from then on.

Fair one

[winchester_royal]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

Except that they have to offer odds before bets are placed, so there is a judgement on outcomes at that stage - it's just reactive to their liability from then on.

Yep, and tbf layers do sometimes take a gamble themselves when there is a heavy favourite that they believe can be 'beaten'. Definitely happens in Horse Racing, though I'd imagine in smaller markets like this one they just go where the money goes.

[Maguire]

Betting for me is all about finding value in the market. Took RFC to draw at Citeh at 11/1 or something stupid like that. Doesn't matter if you think we'll lose, 11/1 is ridiculous value for a draw.

(might have been shorter than that, can't remember)

[Bandini]

Betting for me is all about finding value in the market. Took RFC to draw at Citeh at 11/1 or something stupid like that. Doesn't matter if you think we'll lose, 11/1 is ridiculous value for a draw.

(might have been shorter than that, can't remember)

RIP the halcyon days of 10+ years ago when the bookies' odds for us were often hilariously off.

[Ouroboros]

Betting for me is all about finding value in the market. Took RFC to draw at Citeh at 11/1 or something stupid like that. Doesn't matter if you think we'll lose, 11/1 is ridiculous value for a draw.

(might have been shorter than that, can't remember)

That's the other biggest misconception of gambling held by idiots - that you bet on what you think will happen.

Opposing the overrated favourite - an easy concept that can take you far.

Yep, and tbf layers do sometimes take a gamble themselves when there is a heavy favourite that they believe can be 'beaten'. Definitely happens in Horse Racing, though I'd imagine in smaller markets like this one they just go where the money goes.

I've always thought one of the most fascinating and arcane things about the betting industry is that the bookies actually trade liabilities. Essentially while you are gambling with them, they are gambling with each other.

[Royal Rob]

Which makes me wonder why we are getting so excited about slight fluctuations in odds as though it's seem sort of a sign? It ain't. Granted, it's the only thig we really have to go on as no one is really in the know, and granted they stopped taking bets re: Brian's sacking but that was only just before the sacking. It seems it's only of note when bets stop, in which case we'll be in the know within hours anyway. PDC is a prime example of the futility of bothering with the odds.

Fluctuations in odds can be a sign - there will be people out there in the know who will place a few £s on the next boss just before he is appointed. This obviously drives down the odds and gives us, the wider public, an idea of what is happening. The problem is the wider background "noise". Di Canio, as you rightly point out, was photographed at a Reading match and everyone pilds in. Eamonn Dolan's Reading side put in a decent performance at Old Trafford - but lose - and his odds come tumbling (he was 40-1 last week for goodness sake). That is guesswork based on Leigterwood completing a few passes.

Fluctuations can be a sign of who will be the new boss - but they are very flawed and of only limited use.

I think everyone is obsessing over the odds because it was the bookmakers who told us first that Brian was getting the chop. Of course, when a sacking comes out of the blue (as Brian's did) a sudden piling up of money on him to go is a very useful indication of what may happen. But when we expect an appointment to be made (as we do now) it's quite different - lots of people are putting money on because they have their own view on who the club will go for. When Brian went the options at the bookies were binary - he stays or goes. Now there is a near exhaustive pool of possible contenders. Everyone having a punt on all these different options creates loads of extra useless background noise (a la Di Canio watching the Villa game).

The Reading Post have only fuelled our odds obsession in recent days by running stories saying Adkins / whoever is the current bookmakers favourite. I try not to read Vital Football Reading because I don't attach too much value to the views of a spotty-faced teenager running a Royals website (and I ran one myself once when I was a schoolboy). But yesterday they wrote:

"If the bookies are to be believed, Nigel Adkins could be very close to becoming the new manager of Reading.

"Before people wonder if I am getting this information from the Hob Nob Anyone? forum, I'm not, I wouldn't be that silly! In fact, it's the same source how we had a heads up on Brian McDermott's departure - the bookies! Outlets such as Bet Victor, Paddy Power, Ladbrokes, Stan James have already suspended betting on Adkins becoming the next boss."

Read more: http://www.reading.vitalfootball.co.uk/ ... z2O4llK5VT

Of course, it's not a case of "believing" the bookmakers - but spotting trends in the market. With so much background noise those trends are very difficult to disern right now. Even our tabloid newspapers would base a story on more than that (normally).

The reality is we are all clueless and the odds are our only guide.

[West Stand Man]

This is one of the popular misconceptions about bookies.

They offer odds that, when all bets are settled, give them a profit. That's it. The market reacts to people placing bets, not what the bookies think will happen. As a previous poster said, they don't give a toss about what the actual outcome is.

Absolutely. Which is why the odds are irrelevant in a case like this.

In a horse race it is reasonable to assume that bets will be influenced by factual knowledge of the ability of each horse and hence the likelihood of it winning. In a managerial race that fact is, usually, not there and so the betting is all about the gut feel of the punters. The bookies are simply responding to the market to maximise their profit. They can't be assessing the real probability of any potential applicant getting the job as they don't know any more than we do (which, in this case, is nothing at all).

[BR2]

Betting for me is all about finding value in the market. Took RFC to draw at Citeh at 11/1 or something stupid like that. Doesn't matter if you think we'll lose, 11/1 is ridiculous value for a draw.

(might have been shorter than that, can't remember)

Sorry Mags but your memory is playing tricks with you.
There is no way that 11/1 would be quoted for a draw-the highest when one or other of the sides is a massive favourite is never much higher than 7/2.
That must have been the price for a Reading win.

Sometimes if you bet when the game is in play you can get very big odds for a win on the opposition or for a draw when one side is already leading so say Man City had scored earlier than when they did the odds could well have gone out to higher and even greater than 11/1 with the game approaching the end.
Anybody that backed us when we had those come-from-behind wins could have got enormous odds but would have needed to bet online to access the market.

Check out the odds for our next game at Arsenal.
I would guess that it would be something like:-
Arsenal 1/4
Draw 7/2
Reading 8/1

"Value" in betting is something that punters look for and in football betting sometimes you can get better odds from bookies on fixed-odds events such as football because we as fans sometimes know a bit more about our own team than the bookies.
An example of this was last season and early on this season we played for corners.
Bookies tend to go for averages per game so typically they anticipate 11 corners per game.
Reading for some time (not over the past few months) often got 11 corners of their own let alone as a total for the whole game .

Another market that acts similarly and that is on yellow and red cards.
Reading have amongst the least of these and yet bookies will still often price up on the basis of averages,e.g 3,5 cards per game and you can bet over or under.

On Spread markets you can also bet on injury or added time.
An average would be 7 minutes as a multiple of the 2 halves,i.e somewhere between 2 x 3 and 2 x 4 and you can bet either over or under.
My best ever return on that type of bet was the Chelsea game of Hunt v Cech.
There were 10 minutes of added time in the first half so with the norm being 3 or 4 in the second half of games I was expecting a result of 30 or 40.
The twat of a ref (IIRC Riley) only allowed 2 minutes at the end of the second half despite there being a long stoppage for the Sonko/Cudicini plus substitutions.
The end result was 20 but so easily could have been 30 ,40 or even 50.
The ref is crucial for this type of bet as some are generous with added time whereas others aren't.

Bets do give an added dimension when watching a game and you can compensate for the disappointment of your team losing (too often this season) by picking up winnings on corners etc. and can find yourself enjoying a filthy game with loads of bookings.

[Ouroboros]

Check out the odds for our next game at Arsenal.
I would guess that it would be something like:-
Arsenal 1/4
Draw 7/2
Reading 8/1

I wouldn't bet with you, you tight bugger

[Ouroboros]

You know what most fucks me off? Pranets in the media saying that "the bookies have been proved wrong" or some such nonsense.

When the bookies' odds indicate that the favourite has, say, a 70% chance of winning, how does the favourite losing in any way invalidate that? It's moronic.

Generally, in fact, the bookies do better when an outsider wins.