Smudge226 wrote:

---

Just following the bookies discussion of how they set odds.

I would agree, initial odds to market are the best interpretation before punters start to affect them as more money goes on any runner, the odds will reduce to limit loses, I would agree this is how it works. But there are is more cunning involved than this.. There is something called the 'bookies overrun' which helps them guarantee a healthy return, no matter the winners. All runners and riders should have fractional odds that add up to one in a fair and equitable bet but they don't. Mostly it will add up to 1.25 or 1.35 with the odds short mostly for all runners. This is the bookies overrun. It's easier to see in horse racing when you simply add them up off the entry list. So in essence the initial odds are most accurate but mostly they'll be short but relative to each other, there will be merit in that differential.

---

 Yes

If two players in a match are evens, they should be 2 x each, if you're doing multiples

But they're 1.80 each on most sites

Which, as above, is just the bookies margin, their spread, their cut

But i don't think the initial odds are the most accurate - little people have flutters, based on nothing much, but the big money will have far more data, analysis and IT programmes behind it than the betters' initial algorithm will ever have - precisely because the betting sites have their spread, their 'overrun' as you call it, guaranteed so they don't really care, they're a middleman, whereas the betters have principal at risk

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Smudge226 wrote:

---

Just following the bookies discussion of how they set odds.

I would agree, initial odds to market are the best interpretation before punters start to affect them as more money goes on any runner, the odds will reduce to limit loses, I would agree this is how it works. But there are is more cunning involved than this.. There is something called the 'bookies overrun' which helps them guarantee a healthy return, no matter the winners. All runners and riders should have fractional odds that add up to one in a fair and equitable bet but they don't. Mostly it will add up to 1.25 or 1.35 with the odds short mostly for all runners. This is the bookies overrun. It's easier to see in horse racing when you simply add them up off the entry list. So in essence the initial odds are most accurate but mostly they'll be short but relative to each other, there will be merit in that differential.

---

 Yes

If two players in a match are evens, they should be 2 x each, if you're doing multiples

But they're 1.80 each on most sites

Which, as above, is just the bookies margin, their spread, their cut

But i don't think the initial odds are the most accurate - little people have flutters, based on nothing much, but the big money will have far more data, analysis and IT programmes behind it than the betters' initial algorithm will ever have - precisely because the betting sites have their spread, their 'overrun' as you call it, guaranteed so they don't really care, they're a middleman, whereas the betters have principal at risk

---

 That's it. Using your example odds of 1.8 would be 0.55 (1/1.8), for both players, so for two outcomes with same odds each this is 0.55 x 2 = 1.11 a modest overrun. Guaranteed to make money these guys and virtually nobody out there seems to know how to work it out. The bookies carry no risk at all with this strategy and worse, when they shorten odds whilst increasing others, it shifts betting patterns, in essence you are betting other punters rather than the bookies, again they win. A fools errand and why there should be stiffer regulation. Talk about printing money, no wonder every other advert is a betting site.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

It's an interesting question, Smudge226

(and one that I think is valid to hijack the thread for UNTIL the tennis starts again )

Yes, it's a licence to print money

But - to be fair - so is selling coffee at £4 a cup as most places do in London.

And a whole heap of other things with equally huge mark-ups and on broadly unnecessary products

I honestly get more enjoyment and waste less money by punting my little bits of money on betting sites, than spending £18 to watch a two-hour film at the cinema, or buying a newspaper with nothing to read, or a cup of tea at a posh london café

I class them all the same - they are 'luxuries' and betting is no more a waste of money (if you lose) than wasting money buying another t-shirt when you've got plenty anyway

The problem with betting, obviously, is that it's addictive (although so is shopping for many people). And that some people think it will make them rich, and causes stress - as opposed to seeing it as a leisure activity, no different from the other leisure activities, that cost but give a certain pleasure that's, on balance, worth the cost

---

 No worries, I occasionally have a flutter as well and as with yourself it's more for enjoyment. It does enhance the fun but as you say some folk are addicted and the industry hasn't done enough to protect the vulnerable, generally. The gambling act was hopelessly out of date with advent of mobile phones and the Casino in your pocket technology. Hence the governments Gambling Review 'High Stakes' I think they called it and new rules coming into effect this year. Hopefully better controls for the future, although I did hear that the industry lobbying had achieved some watering down in the regulation before it got through.

Another great win. So good to see Jack doing well here.

Stircrazy wrote:

---

QF:  (13) Jack Draper WR 14 defeated (11) Ben Shelton (USA) WR 12 by 4 & 5 

---

 On a roll    Alcaraz next.