odds for TDF

Andre said:

Cadel Evans 1.45  @
Alejandro Valverde 2.10  @
Denis Menchov 2.20  @
Damiano Cunego 3.25  @
Andy Schleck 3.75  @
Carlos Sastre 4.25  @
Stijn Devolder 6.75  @
Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50  @

This is reasonably accurate...

The accuracy of these odds cannot be assessed. You mean it looks good
to you.

Quoted message said:

except I don't think Cunego and Sastre
will place that high.

These are win odds, so it doesn't really have that much to do with how
high a guy will place. Perhaps the person who set these odds thinks
Cunego is a good prospect to win, but will DNF otherwise. the odds
don't have to reflect consistency.

Quoted message said:

And I would replace A. Schleck with Kirchen.

Not after Saturday, you shouldn't.

Quoted message said:

And
move Valverde ahead of Evans the wheel sucker.

Wheelsucking can win races, if you suck the right wheels.

-rj

Quoted message said:

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.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Andre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Cadel Evans 1.45 @
Alejandro Valverde 2.10 @
Denis Menchov 2.20 @
Damiano Cunego 3.25 @
Andy Schleck 3.75 @
Carlos Sastre 4.25 @
Stijn Devolder 6.75 @
Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50 @

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.

So it could look like this:

Valverde
Evans
Menchov
Devolder
Kirchen
Soler
Sastre
A. Schleck
F. Schleck
Monfort

Andre

On Jun 22, 10:59 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andre said:

Cadel Evans 1.45  @
Alejandro Valverde 2.10  @
Denis Menchov 2.20  @
Damiano Cunego 3.25  @
Andy Schleck 3.75  @
Carlos Sastre 4.25  @
Stijn Devolder 6.75  @
Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50  @

Quoted message said:

This is reasonably accurate...

The accuracy of these odds cannot be assessed.  You mean it looks good
to you.

Dumbass -

They set odds based upon how they think people will bet. It doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with how the oddsmakers think the
riders will actually perform.

They want an even distribution of betting dollars relative to the odds
so that they make money no matter who wins.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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 22, 1:59 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andre said:

Cadel Evans 1.45  @
Alejandro Valverde 2.10  @
Denis Menchov 2.20  @
Damiano Cunego 3.25  @
Andy Schleck 3.75  @
Carlos Sastre 4.25  @
Stijn Devolder 6.75  @
Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50  @

Quoted message said:

This is reasonably accurate...

The accuracy of these odds cannot be assessed.  You mean it looks good
to you.

Quoted message said:

except I don't think Cunego and Sastre
will place that high.

These are win odds, so it doesn't really have that much to do with how
high a guy will place.  Perhaps the person who set these odds thinks
Cunego is a good prospect to win, but will DNF otherwise.  the odds
don't have to reflect consistency.

Quoted message said:

And I would replace A. Schleck with Kirchen.

Not after Saturday, you shouldn't.

Quoted message said:

And
move Valverde ahead of Evans the wheel sucker.

Wheelsucking can win races, if you suck the right wheels.

-rj

Actually these were top ten odds.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 10:59 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jun 22, 12:05 pm, Andre <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cadel Evans 1.45  @
Alejandro Valverde 2.10  @
Denis Menchov 2.20  @
Damiano Cunego 3.25  @
Andy Schleck 3.75  @
Carlos Sastre 4.25  @
Stijn Devolder 6.75  @
Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50  @

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is reasonably accurate...

Quoted message said:

The accuracy of these odds cannot be assessed.  You mean it looks good
to you.

Dumbass -

They set odds based upon how they think people will bet. It doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with how the oddsmakers think the
riders will actually perform.

They want an even distribution of betting dollars relative to the odds
so that they make money no matter who wins.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Dumbass -

I know that. (Still, it's a good point.)

Presumably, the bettors' mental models of who should win are based in
reality; therefore, the betting lines based on how people would bet
should approximate the odds one would create if one was simply
intending to model reality.

So, my point is still the same - to say the odds "look accurate" is
technically imprecise. One can only compare them to one's own mental
model of the odds, because the actual probabilities are unknown and,
in this case, unknowable.

-rj

Andre said:

Actually these were top ten odds.- Hide quoted text -

Andre -

No way those are top ten odds. They look like win odds. Besides,
what bookmakers offer top ten odds? (That's not to say they couldn't,
just that it would be unusual.)

What is your source for these?

-rj

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 10:59 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jun 22, 12:05 pm, Andre <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Cadel Evans 1.45 @
> Alejandro Valverde 2.10 @
> Denis Menchov 2.20 @
> Damiano Cunego 3.25 @
> Andy Schleck 3.75 @
> Carlos Sastre 4.25 @
> Stijn Devolder 6.75 @
> Juan Mauricio Soler Hernández 8.50 @
> This is reasonably accurate...
The accuracy of these odds cannot be assessed. You mean it looks good
to you.

Dumbass -

They set odds based upon how they think people will bet. It doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with how the oddsmakers think the
riders will actually perform.

They want an even distribution of betting dollars relative to the odds
so that they make money no matter who wins.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Dumbass -

I know that. (Still, it's a good point.)

Presumably, the bettors' mental models of who should win are based in
reality; therefore, the betting lines based on how people would bet
should approximate the odds one would create if one was simply
intending to model reality.

You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.

That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
as much the likelihood of winning.

Fred Fredburger said:

You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.

That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
as much the likelihood of winning.

Dumbass -

I agree.

Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
take over time is self-evident.

He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
from the overly rabid fans of the big school.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andre said:

Actually these were top ten odds.- Hide quoted text -

Andre -

No way those are top ten odds.  They look like win odds.  Besides,
what bookmakers offer top ten odds?  (That's not to say they couldn't,
just that it would be unusual.)

What is your source for these?

-rj

http://www.betbrain.com/oddsOverview/Cycling_France_Tour_de_France_2008_Winning_Rider__Yellow_Jersey_/tn/102751737/site/0

Of course Rogers is out.

Andre schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No way those are top ten odds. They look like win odds. Besides,
what bookmakers offer top ten odds? (That's not to say they couldn't,
just that it would be unusual.)

What is your source for these?

http://www.betbrain.com/oddsOverview/Cycling_France_Tour_de_France_2008_Winning_Rider__Yellow_Jersey_/tn/102751737/site/0

If you click on the TopX link, you'll those are podium odds.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

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.

A few weeks ago I would have said Valverde can't TT. I seem to
recall "Who would have thought x could TT like that" was a rbr
code.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

If you click on the TopX link, you'll those are podium odds.

Can you get podium girl odds like whats the chances of the
podium at a particular stage tapping a stage winner.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.

Quoted message said:

That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
as much the likelihood of winning.

Dumbass -

I agree.

Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
take over time is self-evident.

He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
from the overly rabid fans of the big school.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

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. Given sufficient time and
bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
they aren't that in the first place. But, they probably will be that
in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
good information and are in the business of making good odds. If they
couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
exact same thing. Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
good model of the actual probabilities.

Of course, I'm a bigger dumbass than either of you for taking the time
to correct the original poster's message to make a finer point about
his personal assessment of the odds on offer, when we all probably
knew what he meant in the first place.

-rj

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Andre schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No way those are top ten odds.  They look like win odds.  Besides,
what bookmakers offer top ten odds?  (That's not to say they couldn't,
just that it would be unusual.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is your source for these?

Quoted message said:

http://www.betbrain.com/oddsOverview/Cycling_France_Tour_de_France_20...

If you click on the TopX link, you'll those are podium odds.

That makes sense.

-rj

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
as much the likelihood of winning.

Dumbass -

I agree.

Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
take over time is self-evident.

He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
from the overly rabid fans of the big school.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

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. Given sufficient time and
bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
they aren't that in the first place. But, they probably will be that
in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
good information and are in the business of making good odds. If they
couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
exact same thing. Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
good model of the actual probabilities.

Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.

Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
perceive them.

These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.

Donald Munro said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

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.

A few weeks ago I would have said Valverde can't TT. I seem to
recall "Who would have thought x could TT like that" was a rbr
code.

Actually that was my topic "Contador can ITT"...well there you go,
Valverde and Contador the two guys who would be out of a job if they
raced in Germany or Italy courtesy of Fuentes...

Quoted message said:

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.

Fred Fredburger said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You are assuming a well informed, dispassionate betting public.
> That is not a good assumption. People bet for many reasons, some of them
> ignorant and emotional. Name recognition plays into these odds at least
> as much the likelihood of winning.
Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anecdote: a friend of mine actually makes money at gambling, most of
it on college football. He'll make value bets vs. the teams that have
the most passionate, most numerous fans (pre-2007 Notre Dame for
instance), waiting till they go against a quality unknown opponent
with a small fanbase and Notre Dame will get something like 5
touchdowns in the spread. The reason he's able to beat the bookies'
take over time is self-evident.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He's not taking money from the bookies though. The bookies just want
an equal amount of money on both sides of any spread. He's taking it
from the overly rabid fans of the big school.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thanks,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

K. Gringioni.

Quoted message said:

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.  Given sufficient time and
bettors, the odds should become a good model of 'reality,' even if
they aren't that in the first place.  But, they probably will be that
in the first place, because the bookies who set the original odds have
good information and are in the business of making good odds.  If they
couldn't do that, they'd be out of business before very long, since
they're competing with other bookies who are attempting to do the
exact same thing.  Ergo, the odds offered by bookies will tend to be a
good model of the actual probabilities.

Apply that reasoning to Kurgan's ND example. Explain why ND is favored
over the higher quality opponent with the small fanbase.

Bookies aren't interested in "actual probabilities", only in how bettors
perceive them.

These are not the same things. Your mistake is in confusing mass
perception with reality. It is not true that enough people believing ND
will win makes it so. Straightening the perception/reality difference
out for you is a bigger job than I feel up to at the moment.

Dumbass -

Thanks for taking the time to do even that. I didn't feel like
pointing out what he missed.

K. Gringioni.