|
Post by akbar on Jun 30, 2024 8:32:32 GMT -5
For those who bet. 24 days out. Draftkings
Poland +300
France +550
Italy +500
USA + 600
Brazil +800
Slovenia +900
Canada/Japan +1100
Argentina/Serbia +1300
German +1600
Egypt +2500
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 30, 2024 10:47:21 GMT -5
Regarding the odds, when the numbers are first released, I think n00b is correct. That is, the odds provide a sense of team rankings for fans. But after the bets and money start rolling in, MikeG is correct. The bookies constantly adjust the odds so they can cover both sides and still make a profit. No, they reflect the numbers that they think will attract balanced bets even from the start. Sometimes, they may miscalculate, and then money starts coming in heavily on one side. When that happens, they adjust the number to try to attract bets on the other side. But, for example, a "public team" (e.g. Lakers) may have worse true odds to win a tournament than their initial odds, but the bookies are banking on their many casual fans betting on them just because. There are situations where the odds of something happening are so low that the bookies will just take your money and not feel the need to really move the line. Like Bronny James laughably had the most or second-most bets to be the No. 1 overall draft pick (in total bets, he was fifth in handle). His odds actually went from 200-1 to 300-1 or even 500-1 because the bookies were happy to take the money of dimwitted LeBron fans (smarter bettors were betting on him to be drafted by the Lakers and to be drafted late in the second round, and that's exactly what happened). In this tournament, if some billionaire suddenly put a lot of money on Kenya or France, I don't think the bookies would feel the need to move the line much if at all because the chances are so remote.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 30, 2024 11:26:28 GMT -5
Regarding the odds, when the numbers are first released, I think n00b is correct. That is, the odds provide a sense of team rankings for fans. But after the bets and money start rolling in, MikeG is correct. The bookies constantly adjust the odds so they can cover both sides and still make a profit. No, they reflect the numbers that they think will attract balanced bets even from the start. Sometimes, they may miscalculate, and then money starts coming in heavily on one side. When that happens, they adjust the number to try to attract bets on the other side. But, for example, a "public team" (e.g. Lakers) may have worse true odds to win a tournament than their initial odds, but the bookies are banking on their many casual fans betting on them just because. There are situations where the odds of something happening are so low that the bookies will just take your money and not feel the need to really move the line. Like Bronny James laughably had the most or second-most bets to be the No. 1 overall draft pick (in total bets, he was fifth in handle). His odds actually went from 200-1 to 300-1 or even 500-1 because the bookies were happy to take the money of dimwitted LeBron fans (smarter bettors were betting on him to be drafted by the Lakers and to be drafted late in the second round, and that's exactly what happened). In this tournament, if some billionaire suddenly put a lot of money on Kenya or France, I don't think the bookies would feel the need to move the line much if at all because the chances are so remote. I don't use these betting services. If the odds have been adjusted, does the payout follow the betting odds at the time the bet was placed, or does the payout follow the odds in place at the time the payout is made?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 30, 2024 13:27:14 GMT -5
No, they reflect the numbers that they think will attract balanced bets even from the start. Sometimes, they may miscalculate, and then money starts coming in heavily on one side. When that happens, they adjust the number to try to attract bets on the other side. But, for example, a "public team" (e.g. Lakers) may have worse true odds to win a tournament than their initial odds, but the bookies are banking on their many casual fans betting on them just because. There are situations where the odds of something happening are so low that the bookies will just take your money and not feel the need to really move the line. Like Bronny James laughably had the most or second-most bets to be the No. 1 overall draft pick (in total bets, he was fifth in handle). His odds actually went from 200-1 to 300-1 or even 500-1 because the bookies were happy to take the money of dimwitted LeBron fans (smarter bettors were betting on him to be drafted by the Lakers and to be drafted late in the second round, and that's exactly what happened). In this tournament, if some billionaire suddenly put a lot of money on Kenya or France, I don't think the bookies would feel the need to move the line much if at all because the chances are so remote. I don't use these betting services. If the odds have been adjusted, does the payout follow the betting odds at the time the bet was placed, or does the payout follow the odds in place at the time the payout is made? The odds when the bet was placed. Horse racing in an exception.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 30, 2024 13:45:48 GMT -5
I don't use these betting services. If the odds have been adjusted, does the payout follow the betting odds at the time the bet was placed, or does the payout follow the odds in place at the time the payout is made? The odds when the bet was placed. Horse racing in an exception. In most betting, you have an individual bet. Whatever *your* bet is, that's *your* bet. It is the job of the bookie to balance all the bets so as to make sure the losers pay the winners, and the bookie gets the fees. That's why you get the odds that you agreed to on your bet, however they might change later as the bookies try to balance the money. In parimutuel betting, like is used at horse racing tracks, you don't have an individual bet like that. Instead, you have a share of a mutual pool of bets, and the odds float so that all the pooled bets pay each other off, minus a set percentage that the house gets to keep.
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 30, 2024 15:29:28 GMT -5
Regarding the odds, when the numbers are first released, I think n00b is correct. That is, the odds provide a sense of team rankings for fans. But after the bets and money start rolling in, MikeG is correct. The bookies constantly adjust the odds so they can cover both sides and still make a profit. No, they reflect the numbers that they think will attract balanced bets even from the start. Sometimes, they may miscalculate, and then money starts coming in heavily on one side. When that happens, they adjust the number to try to attract bets on the other side. But, for example, a "public team" (e.g. Lakers) may have worse true odds to win a tournament than their initial odds, but the bookies are banking on their many casual fans betting on them just because. There are situations where the odds of something happening are so low that the bookies will just take your money and not feel the need to really move the line. Like Bronny James laughably had the most or second-most bets to be the No. 1 overall draft pick (in total bets, he was fifth in handle). His odds actually went from 200-1 to 300-1 or even 500-1 because the bookies were happy to take the money of dimwitted LeBron fans (smarter bettors were betting on him to be drafted by the Lakers and to be drafted late in the second round, and that's exactly what happened). In this tournament, if some billionaire suddenly put a lot of money on Kenya or France, I don't think the bookies would feel the need to move the line much if at all because the chances are so remote. Interesting. I don't gamble, although, for a couple years, I was closely following betting odds during the NFL playoffs. I felt my theory worked most times. The odds would change throughout the week as money began coming in. Though, the oddsmakers' initial numbers seemed to give a good indication on a 'real' ranking. At least, it seemed better than the vast majority of football pundits/experts. I think that's why people like to post the odds at the start of sporting events, but I see you're point.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 30, 2024 18:28:54 GMT -5
No, they reflect the numbers that they think will attract balanced bets even from the start. Sometimes, they may miscalculate, and then money starts coming in heavily on one side. When that happens, they adjust the number to try to attract bets on the other side. But, for example, a "public team" (e.g. Lakers) may have worse true odds to win a tournament than their initial odds, but the bookies are banking on their many casual fans betting on them just because. There are situations where the odds of something happening are so low that the bookies will just take your money and not feel the need to really move the line. Like Bronny James laughably had the most or second-most bets to be the No. 1 overall draft pick (in total bets, he was fifth in handle). His odds actually went from 200-1 to 300-1 or even 500-1 because the bookies were happy to take the money of dimwitted LeBron fans (smarter bettors were betting on him to be drafted by the Lakers and to be drafted late in the second round, and that's exactly what happened). In this tournament, if some billionaire suddenly put a lot of money on Kenya or France, I don't think the bookies would feel the need to move the line much if at all because the chances are so remote. Interesting. I don't gamble, although, for a couple years, I was closely following betting odds during the NFL playoffs. I felt my theory worked most times. The odds would change throughout the week as money began coming in. Though, the oddsmakers' initial numbers seemed to give a good indication on a 'real' ranking. At least, it seemed better than the vast majority of football pundits/experts. I think that's why people like to post the odds at the start of sporting events, but I see you're point. I think the lines often tend to be pretty close to the actual result in football because there is so much action and attention on that sport. And I also think it's easier to remember the times when the final result was right at the number than the times where it wasn't. I agree that it's interesting to see the odds before a tournament. I don't gamble either (despite working for a company that deals with a lot of gambling), but I've always found it interesting. The oddsmakers might end up closer to the final result than a lot of talking heads, but most talking heads aren't especially good at picking games.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 29,146
|
Post by trojansc on Jun 30, 2024 22:07:19 GMT -5
for those more invested in men's volleyball than me...
are you surprised to see Japan that low on the betting odds?
i'm sort of a Japan-hater myself so i'm living but.. i'm a little surprised ngl.
|
|
|
Post by dragan11 on Jul 1, 2024 6:09:42 GMT -5
for those more invested in men's volleyball than me... are you surprised to see Japan that low on the betting odds? i'm sort of a Japan-hater myself so i'm living but.. i'm a little surprised ngl. Odds shared on top of this page for men's volleyball doesn't make anysense to me. As someone who hates volleyballworld Japanese propaganda, I think that Japan will be on semis. Usa should be lower on the chart, meanwhile Poland is not bigger favorite than France/Italy to me. Level 1: Poland/France/Italy Level 2: Japan/Brazil Level 3: USA/Slovenia/Canada Level 4: Argentina/Germany/Serbia Level 5: Egypt I'd place Germany much higher considering it's a short tournament(even as dark horse for semis with Grozer going wild) if they had their best OH, Rohrs, on team but he is out with an injury.
|
|