Why doesn't Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him - Page 6

Borodog · #51 07-16-2007, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, sure they could do it, but they haven't. You saw how the tradesports line is at 35-1 (I think there's still some value in selling that but its close), and yet, the odds lines are still at 7-1. This is a classic example of a market inefficiency: people don't necessarily shop around, even when they can do it easily on the internet. They listen to the Ron Paul fanboys on the internet, decide they want to bet on him, go to the first site they see and place their bets. 7-1 for Ron Paul is a sucker bet, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

If somebody else is offering 35:1, LDO.

Calling this a "market inefficiency" is silly, however. People that invest the time and effort to do more research deserve to get better deals. That's not inefficiency, it's meritocracy.

Exsubmariner · #52 07-16-2007, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, sure they could do it, but they haven't. You saw how the tradesports line is at 35-1 (I think there's still some value in selling that but its close), and yet, the odds lines are still at 7-1. This is a classic example of a market inefficiency: people don't necessarily shop around, even when they can do it easily on the internet. They listen to the Ron Paul fanboys on the internet, decide they want to bet on him, go to the first site they see and place their bets. 7-1 for Ron Paul is a sucker bet, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

slickpoppa · #53 07-16-2007, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet. The prop bets have very little relation to actual probabilities.

Borodog · #54 07-16-2007, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

slickpoppa · #55 07-16-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

bdk3clash · #56 07-16-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Calling this a "market inefficiency" is silly, however. People that invest the time and effort to do more research deserve to get better deals. That's not inefficiency, it's meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just definitional and not particularly interesting, and I'm definitely veering into territory I'm largely unfamiliar with so there's a good chance I'm way off, but isn't this situation in fact a pretty standard instance of a "market inefficiency" (as the term is used by most economists?)

In particular, would it be accurate to describe this situation as "Pareto inefficient"?

CallMeIshmael · #57 07-16-2007, 04:14 PM

All,

dont confuse market determined odds with actual chances of the bet on event occuring.

If everyone in the world thought the coin toss at next years superbowl was 95% to be heads, odds makers could set the odds at 1-9 and everyone would call it a steal.

That doesnt change the fact its a fair coin.

Borodog · #58 07-16-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling this a "market inefficiency" is silly, however. People that invest the time and effort to do more research deserve to get better deals. That's not inefficiency, it's meritocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just definitional and not particularly interesting, and I'm definitely veering into territory I'm largely unfamiliar with so there's a good chance I'm way off, but isn't this situation in fact a pretty standard instance of a "market inefficiency" (as the term is used by most economists?)

In particular, would it be accurate to describe this situation as "Pareto inefficient"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is how the term is used, and yes, it is silly.

Borodog · #59 07-16-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that translates into being only a 3-4 times lesser dog to win. A chess player who is 3-4 times better than his opponent will almost never lose to that opponent.

slickpoppa · #60 07-16-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that translates into being only a 3-4 times lesser dog to win. A chess player who is 3-4 times better than his opponent will almost never lose to that opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall how Harrington worded it, but the bottom line was that a pro has 3-4 times the EV of the average player, which with a top heavy payout correlates to a 3-4 times better chance of winning the tournament.

Regardless, anyone who knows anything about tournament poker will tell you that no pro is more than some single digit number times more likely to win the WSOP than the average player. Which, getting back to my initial example, means that those 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on pros in a 6000 player field had no relation to reality whatsoever.