[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.
sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.
http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.
Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.
So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't
too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.