Relative strengths of the 6N contenders

[Biffo]

The betting gives an insight into the relative strengths of the 6N teams. For 6N 2010, Ladbrokes bet:

France 3.00
England 3.50
Wales 4.33
Ireland 4.33
Scotland 21.00
Italy 151.00

Ladbrokes think there is not a lot of difference between France, England, Wales and Ireland and that Scotland and Italy are very inferior to them.

William Hill bets similarly:

France 3.25
Wales 3.75
England 3.75
Ireland 4.00
Scotland 21.00
Italy 151.00

The major difference between the two is the ranking of England and Wales.

Neither bookmaker expects a grand slam. The "no grand slam" is 1.62 with Ladbrokes and 1.64 with William Hill.

 

[Thomond78]

Those are lunatic odds on England. They're clearly distorted by the weight of money coming in on them, because no-one in their right mind would bet on England as being better odds than Wales or Ireland.

 

[Lee Grant]

T78

Just remind me why the Grand Slam team this year, Ireland, is 4th in favouritism for next year.


Been there, done that, won't do it again, ROG not the player he was??? I've obviously missed something.

 

[Scarfman]

Weird. I would have thought that Ireland were on top, followed by Wales, then England, and Scotland (of the home countries).

 

[Ash]

It has everything to do with the country that those bookmakers are based in.

I know someone that used Ladbrokes to bet on the Maori beating the BILs a few years ago with fantastic odds. It was clear as day the BILs were struggling and very likely to lose, yet Ladbrokes had them at very short odds.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah, the odds are probably to balance the bookies book on the season to end up ahead of the punters whatever the 6N outcome is. There was probably a lot of early money on the Poms. They played a couple of good games in 6N this year and actually finished 2nd on for and against points IIRR. The early money was probably hopeful of a trend up and a bargain bet.

Or the bookies could be gambling themselves. Nah, it's a business.

 

[Biffo]

It has everything to do with the country that those bookmakers are based in.

I know someone that used Ladbrokes to bet on the Maori beating the BILs a few years ago with fantastic odds. It was clear as day the BILs were struggling and very likely to lose, yet Ladbrokes had them at very short odds.

Re your first sentence, no. A bookmaker who goes too far over the odds will attract a lot of business from his competitors to finance their own books and will lose in the long term. Many years ago there were considerable disparities in bookmakers’ prices in different countries/ locations. These have all but been eliminated by the development of telephone, television and internet services. Today, the bookie in Waikikamukau knows what prices Ladbrokes are betting in the UK and vice versa. There are now very few local betting markets; most are globalized.

Re your second sentence, this happens occasionally but rarely and getting rarer.

From the inception of bookmaking there were two types of operator. The first was the “market men” who set their prices such that they had a profit margin no matter which contestant won the event. They adjusted their prices during betting to reflect the weight of money for various contestants, trying always for a ‘balanced book’. The second was the “opinion men” who figured out who or what could or could not win and set their odds accordingly – they didn’t care about balancing their books and would usually be very over-extended on one or more contestants. They trusted their judgement of the contestants against that of the punters.

In the 1960s, the bookmaking scene began to change dramatically with the arrival of professional punters who calculate “true” odds and bet accordingly. They use objective assessment of the factors determining the outcome of events to calculate the “true” odds. They then bet on those contestants which are over the odds with the bookmakers. These punters will murder any bookie who consistently goes over the odds. This punting practice has grown rapidly in number, volume of money and coverage of events in the last 40-odd years. These pros succeed, big time. For example, a mate of mine died a couple of years back, leaving USD 670 million, all derived from betting the true odds against bookmakers and totalizators.

Some bookmakers were very quick to respond to this punting development. They simply calculated the true odds themselves and offered them to the punters. Those bookies survived and thrived. Most of the “opinion men” were destroyed by the pro punters and the market men now struggle with very meagre crumbs.

It’s quite easy to understand how the “new” betting works. If a bookie calculates that England has a 3/1 (4.00 or 25%) chance of winning the 6N and he can attract the punters to accept, say, 2/1 (3.00) he will be happy to do so, up to a limit set by his capital and capacity to pay. Similarly, if a pro punter calculates that England’s true odds are 2/1 (3.00 or 33.3%) he will happily accept the 3/1 offered by a bookie.

Why, in this case, one bookie prefers England to Wales and the other the reverse, I do not know. Perhaps they put weight on England coming second last year. Perhaps they see that England or Wales has a better/ worse draw than last time. Perhaps they figure that the two have weaker/ stronger squads than last year. Perhaps they figure than Martin Johnson may do a better job this time. There are many factors they may have considered. There is also the perhaps that some pom has come in (or more likely phoned in or got on the net) and put a squillion on England.

 

[Biffo]

Those are lunatic odds on England. They're clearly distorted by the weight of money coming in on them, because no-one in their right mind would bet on England as being better odds than Wales or Ireland.

Go easy on the "lunatic" bit. Ladbrokes and William Hill are pros. There is only one thing on this planet that an amateur does better than a professional.

 

[Scarfman]

Again with the amateur! What is it? Wanking? You're killing me.

 

[Biffo]

Again with the amateur! What is it? Wanking? You're killing me.

I am hoping to get a few responses before I give the answer.

 

[Scotty]

Hmmm.... Passion?

 

[Thomond78]

Those are lunatic odds on England. They're clearly distorted by the weight of money coming in on them, because no-one in their right mind would bet on England as being better odds than Wales or Ireland.

Go easy on the "lunatic" bit. Ladbrokes and William Hill are pros. There is only one thing on this planet that an amateur does better than a professional.

Oh, not at all lunatic for Ladbrokes or William Hill. They're taking the Saes money flooding their way and giggling at the way that the English fans have bought the bullshit and are thinking with their hearts, not their wallets.

 

[Biffo]

Those are lunatic odds on England. They're clearly distorted by the weight of money coming in on them, because no-one in their right mind would bet on England as being better odds than Wales or Ireland.

Go easy on the "lunatic" bit. Ladbrokes and William Hill are pros. There is only one thing on this planet that an amateur does better than a professional.

Oh, not at all lunatic for Ladbrokes or William Hill. They're taking the Saes money flooding their way and giggling at the way that the English fans have bought the bullshit and are thinking with their hearts, not their wallets.

Then someone as smart and ruthlessly logical as you has a glorious opportunity to make a large amount of money by exploiting the stupidity of the English in accepting under the odds.

Ladbrokes and Hills are betting to about 113 per cent. Take out the 27-28 per cent represented by England and the 5 per cent by Scotland and Italy and the market for Wales, Ireland and France comes to about 81 per cent. For every EUR 81 you invest on those three as a combo you will be paid EUR 100 by the bookmaker.

Even if you put England at 10/1 to win, the market for the four excluding Scotland and Italy comes to 91 per cent. For every EUR 91 .... .... .

Easy money for you.

 

[Spook]

These odds are very easy to explain. Ireland played France and England at home during their Slam. They have to play them away in the next 6Ns. I can't remember when Ireland last won in France. They were also beaten in their last visit to Twickers. This is also coupled with the fact that Wales has to go to Twickers as well. Thus it all comes down to the draw my friends.

 

[Thomond78]

Those are lunatic odds on England. They're clearly distorted by the weight of money coming in on them, because no-one in their right mind would bet on England as being better odds than Wales or Ireland.

Go easy on the "lunatic" bit. Ladbrokes and William Hill are pros. There is only one thing on this planet that an amateur does better than a professional.

Oh, not at all lunatic for Ladbrokes or William Hill. They're taking the Saes money flooding their way and giggling at the way that the English fans have bought the bullshit and are thinking with their hearts, not their wallets.

Then someone as smart and ruthlessly logical as you has a glorious opportunity to make a large amount of money by exploiting the stupidity of the English in accepting under the odds.

Ladbrokes and Hills are betting to about 113 per cent. Take out the 27-28 per cent represented by England and the 5 per cent by Scotland and Italy and the market for Wales, Ireland and France comes to about 81 per cent. For every EUR 81 you invest on those three as a combo you will be paid EUR 100 by the bookmaker.

Even if you put England at 10/1 to win, the market for the four excluding Scotland and Italy comes to 91 per cent. For every EUR 91 .... .... .

Easy money for you.

See, that's the problem, Biffo; while I accept your logic, I'd be betting with less information than the guys setting the odds. They set those odds using all the parameters. And they're far from stupid. The only way to win is to have more info than they do, but even then, it doesn't exclude luck and losing by - to take a random example - a random brainfart on the part of the ref (and as a Munster fan, we've seen that happen often enough to know it only too well). It's why betting on the spread on the score is a mug's game; you over-leverage on something that's pretty randomised. Take 2007; came down to a last-minute TMO decision that could have gone either way on Ireland of France winning the 6N. That's luck. You might as well buy a scratch-card for the lottery.

The English fans are betting with less information and bad information, because they're betting with their hearts, not their heads and on the basis of what puff-pieces in the English press are telling them. And the bookies skew the odds to take advantage of that. The sensible bet, as Spook points out, would actually be on France, so the bookies have the odds set for that. The next best bet, as Wales have to come here, is actually us; again, the odds reflect that.

I only bet when I've got information that the market doesn't. You can't beat a market you're part of, because you're part of that market. The only way you can do it is asymmetric information; absent that, keep your money.

Ask me honestly where I reckon the value is, and I'd say Scotland to finish in the top three. They're this year's dark horses.

 

[Biffo]

Those are lunatic odds on England.

[/quote] See, that's the problem, Biffo; while I accept your logic, I'd be betting with less information than the guys setting the odds. [/quote]

Interesting pair of statements. The people setting the odds, who have more information than the punters, are lunatics.

 

[Thomond78]

Those are lunatic odds on England.

See, that's the problem, Biffo; while I accept your logic, I'd be betting with less information than the guys setting the odds. [/quote]

Interesting pair of statements. The people setting the odds, who have more information than the punters, are lunatics.
[/quote]

And now you're being wilfully obtuse, Biffo; because you're ignoring the point I already made, namely that those odds are lunatic for the punters, but not for William Hill and Ladbrokes.

 

[Biffo]

Those are lunatic odds on England.

See, that's the problem, Biffo; while I accept your logic, I'd be betting with less information than the guys setting the odds.

Interesting pair of statements. The people setting the odds, who have more information than the punters, are lunatics.
[/quote]

And now you're being wilfully obtuse, Biffo; because you're ignoring the point I already made, namely that those odds are lunatic for the punters, but not for William Hill and Ladbrokes.
[/quote]

You are obtuse, wilfully or unwillfully, in this matter.

Let me try again to explain to you. If William Hill and Ladbrokes offer under the true odds about England they MUST offer over the true odds for at least one of the others to compensate; such is the competitiveness of bookmaking. In such an event, smart punters (those whose activities I described above to advise you how to make an easy fortune) will step in and make a killing.

Do you really think that Ladbrokes and William Hill, professional and long-surviving in a very tough business, can't see the danger of betting over the odds?

 

[Thomond78]

Those are lunatic odds on England.

See, that's the problem, Biffo; while I accept your logic, I'd be betting with less information than the guys setting the odds.

Interesting pair of statements. The people setting the odds, who have more information than the punters, are lunatics.

And now you're being wilfully obtuse, Biffo; because you're ignoring the point I already made, namely that those odds are lunatic for the punters, but not for William Hill and Ladbrokes.
[/quote]

You are obtuse, wilfully or unwillfully, in this matter.

Let me try again to explain to you. If William Hill and Ladbrokes offer under the true odds about England they MUST offer over the true odds for at least one of the others to compensate; such is the competitiveness of bookmaking. In such an event, smart punters (those whose activities I described above to advise you how to make an easy fortune) will step in and make a killing.

Do you really think that Ladbrokes and William Hill, professional and long-surviving in a very tough business, can't see the danger of betting over the odds?
[/quote]

And the flood of idiot money coming in on England is enough to allow them to make money in that competitive environment. The whole point is, there's so much money will come in on England, regardless, that they can give shorter odds on them and still make money. Those same short odds then tempt in more English fans who bet with their heart, not their head (the "logic" being that England are short odds, so they're bound to win because, worl, Johnny's magic, innee...? So they dump the money on them because it's somehow a sure thing), which means even more money comes in. That money is very unlikely to have to be paid out, but it still comes in regardless; in that regard, it can be a bit like Irish horses in Cheltenham, where the ultimate bookie's nightmare is an Irish favourite winning a big race.

It strikes me that the short odds on England are the ones that allow them to give longer odds on another team with better chances of winning the championship with a fair bit of money coming on from punters who have a national culture of looking for value on bets on sport in early March - which, looking at the odds, I would reckon is Ireland. That's the one that'll bring in the Irish punters who'd otherwise be looking for value; and, with us having to go to Paris this year, that's a fair risk to take.

These lads know what they're doing. Those odds on Scotland, for example, are not a true reflection of their chances because the Scottish pack under a new coach like Andy Robinson is going to be a much, much tougher proposition this year; I reckon they have decent shouts against maybe Wales, definitely England and Italy. Three wins would see them right in the hunt, but their odds are so long as to discourage people away from it.

But that does not mean that those odds, while the right thing for the bookies, are a fair or true reflection of the teams; they're not. They're a fair reflection of the bookies assessing the odds, the money flows and the betting strategies.