Cycling odds thread

Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Moved to new thread - merging posts happens chronologically, sorry for the confusion.
- RR


Bookies are seeing it as follows. Minimum chance for it to be acceptable to back them at current odds in parentheses

1. Contador (28%)
2. Froome (26%)
3. Quintana (20%)
4. Chaves (14%)
5. Purito (8%)
6. Kruijswijk, Valverde, Landa (4%)

Could be a good contest. The Tour and Olympics will have sufficiently weakened Froome for rested riders to have a reasonable chance, in the case of Contador, even a greater chance than Froome himself.
 
Re: 2016 Vuelta a España, Info & Discussion

SeriousSam said:
Bookies are seeing it as follows. Minimum chance for it to be acceptable to back them at current odds in parentheses

1. Contador (28%)
2. Froome (26%)
3. Quintana (20%)
4. Chaves (14%)
5. Purito (8%)
6. Kruijswijk, Valverde, Landa (4%)

Could be a good contest. The Tour and Olympics will have sufficiently weakened Froome for rested riders to have a reasonable chance, in the case of Contador, even a greater chance than Froome himself.
So there's at least a 106% chance somebody will win. Great to have things I can count on in my life
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
No, doesn't follow. As I clearly stated, the percentages are the minimum chance you need a rider to have to win the Vuelta in order for it to be a good bet to back them at the current odds.
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
No, doesn't follow. As I clearly stated, the percentages are the minimum chance you need a rider to have to win the Vuelta in order for it to be a good bet to back them at the current odds.
In other words, Quintana needs to have odds 5,00 or above in order for it to be a profitable bet?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
If you believe his chance to win is no more than 20%, you'd need at least odds of 5 for the bet to have a non-negative expected value.

But I was doing the reverse exercise: writing down what you need to believe a rider's chance is to win in order for it be a good bet to back them given what the bookies currently offer.
 
The cycling odds thread

Because the betting thread in G&FC is rarely used, because the discussion happens anyway, and because not everyone seems to be equally happy with that. Further posts about odds will be moved to this thread
 
bertie, nairo or one of the giro guys to win. i really doubt froome with the tour and olympic medal under his belt will find enough motivation and sports rage to contest it. predicting a winner of the vuelta today is almost as difficult as predicting the 2017 tour winner, as there are too many variables. still gonna be an interesting viewing.
 
Re: The cycling odds thread

Red Rick said:
Because the betting thread in G&FC is rarely used, because the discussion happens anyway, and because not everyone seems to be equally happy with that. Further posts about odds will be moved to this thread
So if we start to post about fantasy cycling in the PRR section, the threads from that subforum will also be allowed here?

I don't get it, why have a subforum if you're not enforcing it equally? This seems like another random grey area, just like the race design thread... the long time CFF games have been a great part of these forums success, why not try and support that as well, if you're allowing other grey area topics?
 
Re: The cycling odds thread

Kazistuta said:
Red Rick said:
Because the betting thread in G&FC is rarely used, because the discussion happens anyway, and because not everyone seems to be equally happy with that. Further posts about odds will be moved to this thread
So if we start to post about fantasy cycling in the PRR section, the threads from that subforum will also be allowed here?

I don't get it, why have a subforum if you're not enforcing it equally? This seems like another random grey area, just like the race design thread... the long time CFF games have been a great part of these forums success, why not try and support that as well, if you're allowing other grey area topics?
In my opinion, posts like those of Valv.Piti in this thread most definitely belong in the other section, but I think betting (or market) is fair game to mention in this section, when used like in the OP as an analytical tool. I don't really see why it should have one thread of it's own, though, as I think such analyses can be an organic part of many conversations here.

Sorry for going meta.

As for the OP: I'm surprised by how likely the market (at this somewhat early stage) thinks Froome is to win the Vuelta. A mere 2 points behind Contador, though once he shows that his injuries won't stop him from being competitive, I think that a correction will be made, and that he'll rise to at least 40% once we reach the first rest day.
 
Re: The cycling odds thread

Netserk said:
Kazistuta said:
Red Rick said:
Because the betting thread in G&FC is rarely used, because the discussion happens anyway, and because not everyone seems to be equally happy with that. Further posts about odds will be moved to this thread
So if we start to post about fantasy cycling in the PRR section, the threads from that subforum will also be allowed here?

I don't get it, why have a subforum if you're not enforcing it equally? This seems like another random grey area, just like the race design thread... the long time CFF games have been a great part of these forums success, why not try and support that as well, if you're allowing other grey area topics?
In my opinion, posts like those of Valv.Piti in this thread most definitely belong in the other section, but I think betting (or market) is fair game to mention in this section, when used like in the OP as an analytical tool. I don't really see why it should have one thread of it's own, though, as I think such analyses can be an organic part of many conversations here.
This was actually my intention. Maybe I haven't made that too clear, but with the increasing amount of talk about odds just in terms of predicting races, I thought it would be good to have an odds thread. Betting is often quite different in what you're discussing in the first place, and secondly, I just don't think that a gambling thread belongs in PRR. I think that in practice the difference should be quite clear.

I'll move the actual picks and betting posts to the betting thread in the games & fantasy section from now on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY