Lions Redwash

First topic message reminder :

Still laughing at the bitterness and -vty on here regarding Gatland and his coaches choices. Stevens and Hartley aside I don't see much of a problem. I think the Lions will actually frighten the Aussies here with huge power and dynamism up front and a backline which will be difficult to break down. I actually think we will suffocate the Aussies and then overwhelm them with our power and pace. I can see us driving right through the middle and then going wide if need be. YES the Aussies have the dancing backs and potentailly more flair; however I think this will be a 0-3 series win for the men in Red. Warburton to be an outstanding leader and perhaps more importantly a winner. For all the exhaltations of recent past great Captains, they have all failed when it mattered. Sam is the man and I believe he along with his compatriots will win the series with something to spare. Hows that for -vty

Now you can get on board or carry on whinging

Oz, try it with a 6 dog race, only 6 winners possible, so tot up all 6 bookie prices, ain't too difficult to do in xls, see how close to1.0 that thieving bookie gets.

so you'ld expect six to one odds on any horse winning is that right?

Any other odds will favor the bookie or punter?

no, 6:1 if each dog was exactly equal, or 6 x 0.166667.
But that leaves no profit for the bookie, differention of form, or weight of money

OZ T,
I actually checked some prices, and betting margins are worse (for punter) than I previously thought.
I checked online betting prices on 5 random races (6 dogs x 5 = 30 dog prices) with a leading UK bookie. The range of probabilities came out tightly bunched in range 0.8 to 0.82, with average of 0.81 (where 1.0 = certainty, ie where one dog has to win)
So on my calcs this bookie is averaging a margin of £19 on every £100 wagered.

Thanks mate, but I still don't get it. I don't get the bit when you go from 6:1 to
6 x 0.166667, cause that comes to just above 1, but I think I get the point there.

Don't see what "in range 0.8 to 0.82, with average of 0.81 means. Working on 0.8, that times 30 = 24, so is the money then betted on the remaining 6 horses their profit?

Oz
My (slightly improved) method is to tot up all the win /loss odds over the six dogs. One race example:
5 2
10 1
10 1
10 1
8 1
4 5
AGGREGATE of above 47 11
So this field has aggregate 47 chances of losing, vs aggregate 11 chances of winning, for aggregate 58 total outcomes. 47/58 = 0.81.
Try this on a few other random sets of 6 dog prices, they fall v close to this 81% pattern. I'm not a mathematician, but I can see a pattern here.

Cheers mate, that has made it 110% clearer!!! I get it now!

So the profit is 100-81 = 19% profit for the bookies!

Clear as glass now

gregortree wrote:Oz
My (slightly improved) method is to tot up all the win /loss odds over the six dogs. One race example:
5 2
10 1
10 1
10 1
8 1
4 5
AGGREGATE of above 47 11
So this field has aggregate 47 chances of losing, vs aggregate 11 chances of winning, for aggregate 58 total outcomes. 47/58 = 0.81.
Try this on a few other random sets of 6 dog prices, they fall v close to this 81% pattern. I'm not a mathematician, but I can see a pattern here.

That makes sense. The NZ TAB (which has a monopoly on sports betting in NZ, but pays its profits to charity - it's basically a quango) runs to a 75% payout, you'd expect that payout to increase with competition. The 19% "your" bookie keeps has to pay his staff, website costs, physical rent for office space and betting shops, etc.

OzT wrote:Cheers mate, that has made it 110% clearer!!! I get it now!

So the profit is 100-81 = 19% profit for the bookies!

Clear as glass now

and that is online margins - no high street rents to cover !

Oz, T, thanks, I found it an interesting exercise myself, to dig into this. I knew there had to be a method somewhere in the bookies madness, and I hope I have found their pattern.
Try it on a few SPs see if you get the same.
Next up if I have time, and in keeping with the OP, I need to look at quotes prices on the 9 possible outcome for the B&I series.
We'll see what margin those crafty bookies are making from us rugby idiots.
Anyone have all 9 prices for the series outcomes ?

Is this what you mean?

Selection Odds
Australia 1-0 300/1
Australia 2-0 33/1
Australia 3-0 6/1
Australia 2-1 12/5
British and Irish Lions 1-0 250/1
British and Irish Lions 2-0 25/1
British and Irish Lions 3-0 3/1
British and Irish Lions 2-1 15/8
Drawn Series 22/1

thanks Oz T, I'll do some maths on those odds....

Can someone rename this thread 'the maths thread'? I keep coming here and getting a headache!

So, that gives an outcome of 0.970845481, which means the profit margin for the bookies, at least, always will be only 3%??

The B&I outcomes are a bit different from a 6 dog race model.
But simplifying the B&I series, there are just 3 net outomes.

A = series win (Aus)
B - series win (B&I)
D = series draw.
That covers 100% of the possibilites.
The odds from Oz T post give the following net:
A = 47%
B = 67%
D = 4%.

WHAT ? but that is 115% ! impossible ?
Ah yes, but that is due to the bookies margin !
Invert it and punters can expect to get only 100/115 = 87% (rounded) of the possible outcomes.
Bookie keeps 13%, or $13 in every $100 bet.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Can someone rename this thread 'the maths thread'? I keep coming here and getting a headache!

Not sure whether that is maths mate, I know a bit about maths, about bookies I know nothing.

so this calc is wrong then?

odds:
300 1
33 1
6 1
12 5
250 1
25 1
3 1
15 8
22 1
======
666 20 666/686 = 0.970845481
thus 3% margin for the bookies?

OzT, yes that is not quite right.
The 6 dog model does not transfer exactly to a 2 team series with only 3 possible series outcomes.
But if you add up the 4 possible ways AUS could win the series the bookies give:
1-0 = 0.3%
2-0 = 2.9%
3-0 14.3%
2-1 29.4%
AGGREGATE 47.0% 'bookies' chance of an Oz series win.You can do this on xls.
It must be late in Oz land, hope we are not keeping you up.

WIKI explanationof bookies model may help:
The amount by which the actual 'book' exceeds 100% is known as the 'overround':[3][4] it represents the bookmaker's potential profit if he is fortunate enough to accept bets in the exact proportions required. Thus, in an "ideal" situation, if the bookmaker accepts £111.27 in bets at his own quoted odds in the correct proportion, he will pay out only £100 (including returned stakes) no matter what the actual outcome of the football match. Examining how he potentially achieves this:
A stake of £55.56 @ 4-5 returns £100.00 (rounded down to nearest penny) for a home win. A stake of £35.71 @ 9-5 returns £ 99.98 (rounded down to nearest penny) for a drawn match A stake of £20.00 @ 4-1 returns £100.00 (exactly) for an away win
Total stakes received — £111.27 and a maximum payout of £100 irrespective of the result. This £11.27 profit represents a 10.1% profit on turnover (11.27 × 100/111.27).

It's helping me to matric....

No I'm in the UK

Ok Oz, hope it helps you.
It has helped me think the subject through more clearly.
I don't go to bookies, but if ever I do I'll have a better understanding of my chances.

Biltong wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Can someone rename this thread 'the maths thread'? I keep coming here and getting a headache!

Not sure whether that is maths mate, I know a bit about maths, about bookies I know nothing.

It's going right over my head, whatever it is!

Sorry Luckless P.
as regards the OP 'Redwash' if that refers to 3-0 for the Lions, the bookies odds posted by Oz T are 3:1 against a Redwash.
My purely subjective guess would be longer odds than that.
But then 3:1 reflects a wave of less than objective GB&I money plus a bookies margin sliced off the top.