2012 Betting Odds

[Mephistopheles]

It may not interest me per se but what does interest me is why people find it interesting, my younger brother got heavily into gambling a while back and was doing up to a grand a night in casino's thank god he's stopped.

If I didn't participate in the debate then I would never understand the reasons for gambling a person should never stop asking questions.

 

[Greenman]

I'm sorry to hear someone close has suffered with a gambling problem and can understand your stance in that respect. Like with many things doing something in moderation and for pleasure is an enjoyable experience, where excess or additiction of the same is a different matter.

I don't use the word gambler to refer to myself, I prefer bettor or trader. As long as you know your market and apply some discipline, the rest is about probability, value and a staking plan, anything else will lose you money in the long run. Not everyone has the head or mindset for it but sports trading is one of my 'hobbies' and is completely self funding (apart from the original deposit of course).

The industry is now operates in a similar fashion to the financial markets where you can buy and sell sports events so if you enjoy it and are responsible then this is a reason to 'gamble'. Traders do it every day in financial markets around the world to support our lifestyles and occasionally they get it wrong too!!

 

[Cookinflatsix]

The industry is now operates in a similar fashion to the financial markets where you can buy and sell sports events so if you enjoy it and are responsible then this is a reason to 'gamble'. Traders do it every day in financial markets around the world to support our lifestyles and occasionally they get it wrong too!!

Please please, spread betting might sound financial but it's pure gambling and not trading as practiced by real traders

Real traders buy and sell from other real traders

Gamblers bet against a house ( or bucket shop)

Their is no underlying necessity or commodity involved in sports betting, let's say it's gambling unless you are the bookie or on Betfair then we could reasonably say that you are playing the vig ( taking the other side of the mugs)

 

[Greenman]

Please please, spread betting might sound financial but it's pure gambling and not trading as practiced by real traders

Real traders buy and sell from other real traders

Gamblers bet against a house ( or bucket shop)

The financial comparison was more refering to the mechanics of a market rather than the those practicing but even so they're not that different an animal either. 'Real' traders buy and sell from other 'real' traders on our behalf .... the mugs, the people with failed pensions or other poorly performing investment policies.

I don't trade on the spreads but even so it's hardly 'pure gambling' particularly if you're comparing it to 'real' traders. Trading is a skill learned and practiced whether it's in financial or sports markets and you seem to be quick to associate the word gambling with sports but not stocks and shares.

I was kinda hoping to join a discussion about the driver market and not defend the virtues of betting

 

[Cookinflatsix]

I was kinda hoping to join a discussion about the driver market and not defend the virtues of betting

The discussion on the market on drivers is interesting I just don't believe anyone needs to be sold on how good and normal gambling is. Just sounded a little like enticement and I am not sure that's fair without pointing out the dangers involved

 

[Brogan]

This thread is about the odds on drivers and teams, not about betting in general or moralising on the associated risks.
Feel free to start a new thread in the Gravel Trap if you want to discuss that.

Let's get back to the subject.

 

[riskitall]

most of the time betting on any race,match etc means you will have a better chance of winning if you put money on the favourate.but you will win more if you put the same amount of money on the underdog,but theres obviously alot more risk involved.
so most ppl go for the safer bet.for example very few will put money on wigan to beat united,or on cotto to beat mayweather and thats because if most ppl believe that team or boxer is better theyll believe putting money on them will more likely win them the bet.
so at the moment vettel is favourate because most ppl believe redbull have the best car again and vettel has won the last 2 championships.then lewis is second favourate because many ppl believe mclaren have a good enough car to compete for wins from the first race and they expect lewis to be back to his best this season,or better than he's ever been because of a dispointing last season.and alonso on paddy power is 3rd favourate(joint second on betfred with lewis) just because he is a top top driver and if ferrari have a good enough car will be up there.and at the end of the day most ppl still believe those 3 are the best drivers,despite what happened last season.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

And that correlates with what people think on this forum also

 

[Bill Boddy]

And that correlates with what people think on this forum also

Then it must be true.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

there is no absolute truth when it comes to these judgements

Only what people think and how much they are willing to put up or shut up

money is the best indicator and for that we have the bookies odds

 

[johnnoble1990]

As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, I have no interest in odds from a gambling point of view. The bookmakers take about a 9% cut on all books, so it is down to an individual to decide whether they want to play.

What I am interested in though, is probability, and regardless of prior discussions, I still think bookmakers offer the best probability for a season, or at very least, it represent collective opinion of the best probability. I don't entirely agree with Greenman's table on the other page for 2 reasons. Firstly, the odds he respresents is based on the money bet on each driver as a percentage of money bet on all drivers. This ignores the fact that people are picking their bets based on prices and prices are volatile, so people may of thought a driver was overpriced or underpriced in the past, which would effect their total staked and make their price rise or fall anyway. Supply and demand have effect on price here in a similar way to stock market. Secondly, his percentages doesn't take into account the houses cut on actual odds. It is simply 1/price. I think to avoid bias, the best way to calculate the percentage chance given by bookmakers is simply do 1/price/book%. I think doing it any other way gives a chance of bias. So Vettel's price of 2.14 in a 105.619% book works out as 1/2.14/1.05619 = 44.24%. And for the rest:

Sebastian Vettel 44.2%
Lewis Hamilton 14.8%
Fernado Alonso 11.0%
Jenson Button 10.3%
Mark Webber 5.6%
Kimi Raikkonen 3.6%
Nico Rosberg 3.6%
Michael Schumacher 2.6%
Felipe Massa 0.9%
Romain Grosjean 0.7%
Paul Di Resta 0.5%
Nico Hulkenberg 0.3%
Jean Eric Vergne 0.2%
Pastor Maldonado 0.2%
Kamui Kobayashi 0.2%
Daniel Ricciardo 0.1%
Sergio Perez 0.1%
Bruno Senna 0.1%
Heikki Kovalinen 0.1%
Vitaly Petrov 0.1%
Timo Glock 0.1%
Charles Pic 0.1%
Pedro De La Rosa 0.1%
Narain Kathikeyan 0.1%
Rubens Barrichello 0.1%
Jarno Trulli 0.1%
Total 100.0%

Of course there are still limitations of this. And If anyone thinks I'm trying to post the absolute truth of their probabilities then I am wasting my time here.

 

[johnnoble1990]

I like this one even better. Only just noticed the odds went up for them. It is from spread betting site sporting index. I've just taken mid-price between buy and sell. People bet on whether they are likely to score higher or lower than these totals. Theoretically, there should be 50% of people saying higher, 50% lower.

1 Sebastian Vettel 330
2 Lewis Hamilton 253
3 Fernando Alonso 241
4 Jenson Button 227
5 Mark Webber 227
6 Nico Rosberg 133
7 Kimi Raikkonen 120
8 Michael Schumacher 120
9 Felipe Massa 108
10 Romain Grosjean 72
11 Paul Di Resta 38.5
12 Nico Hulkenberg 36.5
13 Kamui Kobayashi 24.5
14 Sergio Perez 24.5
15 Daniel Ricciardo 23.5
16 Jean-Eric Vergne 19.5
17 Pastor Maldonado 15.5
18 Bruno Senna 11.5
19 Heikki Kovalainen 5
20 Vitaly Petrov 4
21 Timo Glock 0.5
22 Narain Karthikeyan 0.5
23 Pedro De La Rosa 0.5
24 Charles Pic 0.5

Two things that jump out at you is the dominance predicted for Vettel and Massa being way, way down on Alonso...

 

[Wombcat]

The industry is now operates in a similar fashion to the financial markets where you can buy and sell sports events so if you enjoy it and are responsible then this is a reason to 'gamble'. Traders do it every day in financial markets around the world to support our lifestyles and occasionally they get it wrong too!!

Keep in mind there's a major difference between the financial markets (I assume you mean stocks and derivates here) and betting. In the financial market, on the long term stocks have a better interest than putting money into a savings account. In betting the house always wins in the long term.
If you invest in stocks, you can basically take an index tracker, and you have a very good chance that in the long term (30+ years) your interest is better than inflation. At least it has always been that way, but even then there's no guarantee that it will stay that way.

You´d assume that professional stock traders would perform bettter than the index. In fact they don´t. It´s really hard to beat the index.

You could compare a bookie to the index: really hard to beat. Probably even harder to beat than the index, because a bookie has to make money, otherwise he is out of business. So he will set the odds up in such a way that he always will make money.

Which make me think that if you (think you)'re good enough to beat a bookie, you'd be better of by being a bookie. Because you'd be having a more steady flow of money with less risk.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Keep in mind there's a major difference between the financial markets (I assume you mean stocks and derivates here) and betting. In the financial market, on the long term stocks have a better interest than putting money into a savings account. In betting the house always wins in the long term.

As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, I have no interest in odds from a gambling point of view. The bookmakers take about a 9% cut on all books...

Supply and demand have effect on price here in a similar way to stock market. Secondly, his percentages doesn't take into account the houses cut on actual odds. It is simply 1/price. I think to avoid bias...is simply do 1/price/book%.

Don't worry; I kept it in mind. Should point out that the point about professional stock traders not out performing indexes is from some academic studies. They believe in semi-strong form efficiency, in which prices reflect all publicly made information about a company. I guess the point I made on odds is suggesting this is also true to betting books...although it is done with less analysis and more often at an amateur level, so there would probably be a bigger error margin.

 

[johnnoble1990]

The industry is now operates in a similar fashion to the financial markets where you can buy and sell sports events so if you enjoy it and are responsible then this is a reason to 'gamble'. Traders do it every day in financial markets around the world to support our lifestyles and occasionally they get it wrong too!!

I've just seen Wombcat was replying to this, not me. I'd have to say that is not really a reason to gamble. Stock makets tend to go up over time, studies have shown about 4-5% above risk-free rate over the last century. Bookmakers on the other hand, tend to consistenly have a 6-20% cut on their books. I don't think advocating gambling for anything other than fun is a good idea. Probably should try to remain on topic. Sorry...

 

[Wombcat]

I don't think advocating gambling for anything other than fun is a good idea. Probably should try to remain on topic.

Kinda my point
I was a bit offtopic as well

 

[Greenman]

A bit of a holier than thou attitude to betting around here which I wasn't expecting and also some misinterpretation of my intentions which is disappointing given I spent an hour putting the orginal tables and post together to share knowledge. Never mind, at least I know early on where my energy is not welcome. Maybe these things are better discussed in a pub over a pint unless there are also members of the temperance movement hanging out too.

So sticking with probability only, Vettel is currently between 50% and 58% chance to win the WDC based on all available odds and taking into account a 5% over round book. If the final two days in Barcelona hadn't been so disappointing for Red Bull this number would almost certainly have been over 60%. Using this approach for the top six drivers their probability range is as follows:

Vettel - 58% - 50%
Hamilton - 19% - 15%
Alonso - 18% - 12%
Button - 17% - 11%
Webber - 8% - 6%
Raikkonen - 7% - 4%

When testing started the WDC odds mostly reflected a combination of the 2011 standings and driver popularity, where they now reflect those two factors plus opinions formed since testing finished. This is illustrated by Red Bull and Ferrari drivers drifting in the market since Barcelona, where McLaren drivers and Kimi have shortened.

I expect these numbers to change somewhat before Q1 but it's anyones guess in which direction.

 

[johnnoble1990]

I do appreciate your time greenman, but I don't understand how you have Vettel as 58% chance of winning. Did you not just ignore the figures I gave myself? (see post #31-32) Maybe my time isn't being appreciated either. I appreciate any effort people go to on this site to impart wisdom to the group, but I think this wisdom is open to challenge. If you explain how you got your figures I might have a better idea of what you are telling us, because I don't understand how the mid-points of the 6 drivers adds up to well over 100% (112.5%)?

 

[Greenman]

John, my apologies and also well spotted I posted my layers book (acting as a bookie) instead my back book. What I mean by that is if Vettel's price falls below 58% (1.72) I would consider laying the price. I always run two books, one at 95% and the other at 105% to ensure I'm backing or laying at profitable odds.

I don't have time this morning but will post the right numbers tonight hopefully. By the way I have no problem with wisdom being challenged it's when others attempt to take the moral high ground.

 

[johnnoble1990]

Ahh...okay. So these are prices you consider viable? I think we are just coming at this from two different angles, which is the reason for the confusion. I'm just looking at the probability bookmakers consider of each person winning, where I think you are more looking from a gambling point of view. I don't think you should take offense to comments on gambling. People will always have there own opinion. My mums terrified I have a gambling addiction; what she doesn't understand is I'm just interested in chance and probability, which I consider to be a brilliant skill to understand. I think the bet prior to the Hamilton one I put on was Grand National 2010. I said my view on gambling though. I think it is down to the person to decide on the opinion of gambling. I'd just avoid statements like "this is a reason to 'gamble'." because people will misunderstand what you are telling them.

As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, I have no interest in odds from a gambling point of view. The bookmakers take about a 9% cut on all books, so it is down to an individual to decide whether they want to play.