Froome Vs. Contador

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who will you cheer for?

  • Neutral

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
I think that the idea of bookmakers as 'objective and competent' is something of a myth, I'm afraid. Firstly, bookmakers aren't objective. Bookmakers want to make money, they don't want to actually predict the winner. To take a parochial example; every year, the biggest betting event in the UK is the Grand National, a horse race which a third of the population are said bet on each year. Every year, the leading favourite is the winner of the Cheltenham Gold Cup (another major horse race, with important differences to the national), if they're riding. In the 150+-year history of both events, precisely one horse has won both in the same season. That was in 1934. In the past 100 years, only 11 favourites have won; Thai isn't because bookmakers are stupid or because horses don't respond well to the pressure. The thing about the Grand National, and about the Tour, is that they both attract an awful lot of once-a-year fans, whose money bookmakers love to take. A lot of people are going to bet on Quintana, because he came second in the only bike race they watched last year, just as a lot of people bet on the winner in the only other jumps race they've ever heard of. When so many people (speaking relatively) are betting on someone, the bookies cut their potential losses by lowering the odds - this doesn't mean they think the rider/horse is going to win. Bookies aren't objective, they're led by where they think the crowd will go, especially in a race where a crowd is as large and inexperienced as the Tour's potential market. This leads me to my next point; bookies aren't really that 'competent' (with all due respect to any who might be reading). British bookmakers are experts on horse racing, and most of their market is horse racing, yet I remember seeing a BBC documentary a couple of months ago which showed in passing how one of Britain's largest bookmakers set the odds for a fairly significant race. Two blokes huddled around a computer, spent around 30 seconds scanning the form of each horse, and bickered for another 30 seconds about the fine points of the odds. You're kidding yourself if you think cycling gets anywhere near as much as attention. UK, US, or German bookies probably have a few niche sports guys who set the odds on everything that isn't racing or football; for a race as big as the TdF, a few of the other employees who 'follow' cycling by reading about it in the newspapers when it comes up drop in to offer an input, I'd guess. Just like the punters, they've probably not heard of many riders, but remember the man who came second last year. Spanish, French, or Italian bookies probably have a few genuine cycling fans on staff, but even they know nothing more than the rest of us. They have the same form, they watch the same races, they read the same news...there's no supercomputer calculating perfect odds, there's cycling fans - just like the rest of us - who set the odds they think people will buy.
(I claim no expertise; what I've written above about the experience levels of bookies could be all wrong. I'd be surprised, though.)
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
Cannibal72 said:
Bookmakers know nothing, especially three months before the Tour even starts.
for sure as no one is able to predict the future precisely, still they are much more objective and competent than overwhelming majority of partial cycling audience.
Honestly, usually even the most biased can come up with more probable outcomes than the bookmakers. Apparently Nibali, having just done the Giro is more of a favourite than Pinot. And Porte is as likely to win the Giro as Landa, and more likely to win the Tour than Aru and Nibali. Apart from those they are usually somewhat aligned to the fans' point of view.


Valv.Piti said:
I read it and thats your opinion and you are completely entitled to it! I just pointed out that the general consensus is that Froome is the biggest favourite ahead of Quintana and Contador in that order among bookmakers. I read the interview, I was surprised as well and we can speculate all into July. One thing is certain and that is, if he feels he is stronger than Froome, he will go. There really isn't a question about that. IIRC, he said he will be more conservative - I think he refers to doing a better job early in terms of resting and getting through as easy as possible. Then come the Pyrenees, all logic says Quintana AND Contador should wait for Froome to show his cards and do everything in order to follow him. In the Alps, Quintana knows he will be better than Froome.

I understand, and I agree that quintana should be a favourite. And , without crashes or illness, he will podium. However, I feel he has very, very little chance of winning if he does what he did last year as this year there is a 40km TT too, and the only stages that really suit him if he will indeed be more conservative is Finhaut-Emosson, Mont Ventoux, the MTT and to a lesser extent Arcalis and Mont Blanc. If he was actually bluffing, then he has a great chance of winning. Long range attacks like the Stelvio of 2014 can be done on stage 5, 20 and 15.
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
dacooley said:
Cannibal72 said:
Bookmakers know nothing, especially three months before the Tour even starts.
for sure as no one is able to predict the future precisely, still they are much more objective and competent than overwhelming majority of partial cycling audience.
Honestly, usually even the most biased can come up with more probable outcomes than the bookmakers. Apparently Nibali, having just done the Giro is more of a favourite than Pinot. And Porte is as likely to win the Giro as Landa, and more likely to win the Tour than Aru and Nibali. Apart from those they are usually somewhat aligned to the fans' point of view.

the thing is people start becoming way more reasonable when taking on their own financial risks. launch the thread 'who will win the giro / the tour' and compare the results to betting odds' ratios - we'll see some difference.
 
Cannibal: I think the documentary you have watched have clouded the picture a bit. Setting an odds is a lot more professional than what you described, but I think some of your points are good.

HOWEVER, I have heard people claiming that bookmakers 'know nothing' and 'are clueless' numerous times at this forum. I challenge those who say that to make a fortune off of betting. If they don't know anything, that should be rather easy. You don't even have to go to work 8-16 anymore at this point!
 
Nice argument, only to start another useless argument nobody ever agrees on, which you should know because it's been used plenty of times before, and most of the times prevents any decent discussion.

But since you know so much about bookmakers, I'll ask you this question. What do bookmakers do with winning punters?
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Nice argument, only to start another useless argument nobody ever agrees on, which you should know because it's been used plenty of times before, and most of the times prevents any decent discussion.

But since you know so much about bookmakers, I'll ask you this question. What do bookmakers do with winning punters?

I simply just mentioned that was what the market looked at this point. I didn't wanna get into an argument, but I probably shoulda known since we have a few Alberto-fans on the forum who probably would bring what i wrote into question. My apologies for bringing the bookies up, I should have known better.

Anyways, winning punters get shown the door. If they win consistently. Whats your point? You can still make a shitload if you know more than the bookies.

Edit: Whatever, I don't think this is the place of this argument. I'll just leave it at that. To get back on topic: The prologue in Dauphine will be epic, can't wait.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Red Rick said:
Because limiting winners is the biggest reason bookmakers make money. And I'm just a bit tired of the subject turning a lot discussion to ****.

I agree. So what do you think - is Contador the biggest favourite, second or.. ?
Ranked for likelihood of winning the Tour, based on what we know as of now:
1st: Froome
2nd: Contador
3rd: Quintana

Same as above, but for a podium place:
1st: Quintana
2nd: Froome
3rd: Contador

Likelihood of winning if they reach the Tour in their best possible shape and without accidents:
1st: Contador
2nd: Froome
3rd: Quintana

Froome and Sky obviously know what they are doing and how to win, whereas Contador is less certain (age plays a part here and the fact that he hasn't been able to deliver in the Tour for various reasons in a long time) and Quintana is a tad too conservative and his ITT is the worst of the three.
 
I agree with Netserk. Froome is where he has been in the past before being good in July. Quintana is too. Contador is hard to say, because he reportedly had a cold after Paris Nice. If he's fully recovered from that, we'll see in Pais Vasco. He's certainly better than in the spring of 2013, and I'm pretty sure he's also better than in the spring of 2015.
 
Re:

Cannibal72 said:
I think that the idea of bookmakers as 'objective and competent' is something of a myth, I'm afraid. Firstly, bookmakers aren't objective. Bookmakers want to make money, they don't want to actually predict the winner. To take a parochial example; every year, the biggest betting event in the UK is the Grand National, a horse race which a third of the population are said bet on each year. Every year, the leading favourite is the winner of the Cheltenham Gold Cup (another major horse race, with important differences to the national), if they're riding. In the 150+-year history of both events, precisely one horse has won both in the same season. That was in 1934. In the past 100 years, only 11 favourites have won; Thai isn't because bookmakers are stupid or because horses don't respond well to the pressure. The thing about the Grand National, and about the Tour, is that they both attract an awful lot of once-a-year fans, whose money bookmakers love to take. A lot of people are going to bet on Quintana, because he came second in the only bike race they watched last year, just as a lot of people bet on the winner in the only other jumps race they've ever heard of. When so many people (speaking relatively) are betting on someone, the bookies cut their potential losses by lowering the odds - this doesn't mean they think the rider/horse is going to win. Bookies aren't objective, they're led by where they think the crowd will go, especially in a race where a crowd is as large and inexperienced as the Tour's potential market. This leads me to my next point; bookies aren't really that 'competent' (with all due respect to any who might be reading). British bookmakers are experts on horse racing, and most of their market is horse racing, yet I remember seeing a BBC documentary a couple of months ago which showed in passing how one of Britain's largest bookmakers set the odds for a fairly significant race. Two blokes huddled around a computer, spent around 30 seconds scanning the form of each horse, and bickered for another 30 seconds about the fine points of the odds. You're kidding yourself if you think cycling gets anywhere near as much as attention. UK, US, or German bookies probably have a few niche sports guys who set the odds on everything that isn't racing or football; for a race as big as the TdF, a few of the other employees who 'follow' cycling by reading about it in the newspapers when it comes up drop in to offer an input, I'd guess. Just like the punters, they've probably not heard of many riders, but remember the man who came second last year. Spanish, French, or Italian bookies probably have a few genuine cycling fans on staff, but even they know nothing more than the rest of us. They have the same form, they watch the same races, they read the same news...there's no supercomputer calculating perfect odds, there's cycling fans - just like the rest of us - who set the odds they think people will buy.
(I claim no expertise; what I've written above about the experience levels of bookies could be all wrong. I'd be surprised, though.)

A sordid business and who knows what the implications are.
 
Froome is present only in twitter pictures taken by himself grinning while his teammates struggle in the backgound. Meanwhile Bertie disappeared in the Basque woods on Arrate emerging after some 7 Watts/kilo to win Pais Vasco. Who's the boss?
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Froome is present only in twitter pictures taken by himself grinning while his teammates struggle in the backgound. Meanwhile Bertie disappeared in the Basque woods on Arrate emerging after some 7 Watts/kilo to win Pais Vasco. Who's the boss?

You forgot the constant references to rice cakes :D
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Froome is present only in twitter pictures taken by himself grinning while his teammates struggle in the backgound. Meanwhile Bertie disappeared in the Basque woods on Arrate emerging after some 7 Watts/kilo to win Pais Vasco. Who's the boss?


We will see in Dauphine, le Tour, Olimpics and maybe la Vuelta. ;)

At the moment I think Froome is the boss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyQKurDgMg&nohtml5=False

And this is just one indication, but... willian hill TdF 2016 now,


2.20

Chris Froome

3.25

Nairo Quintana

4.50

Alberto Contador

15.00

Fabio Aru

21.00

Richie Porte

31.00

Thibaut Pinot

31.00

Vincenzo Nibali

34.00

Geraint Thomas

34.00

Tejay Van Garderen
 
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
Rollthedice said:
Froome is present only in twitter pictures taken by himself grinning while his teammates struggle in the backgound. Meanwhile Bertie disappeared in the Basque woods on Arrate emerging after some 7 Watts/kilo to win Pais Vasco. Who's the boss?


We will ee in Dauphine, le Tour, Olimpics and maybe la Vuelta. ;)

At the moment I think Froome is the boss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyQKurDgMg&nohtml5=False

And this is just one indication, but... willian hill TdF 2016 now,


2.20

Chris Froome

3.25

Nairo Quintana

4.50

Alberto Contador

15.00

Fabio Aru

21.00

Richie Porte

31.00

Thibaut Pinot

31.00

Vincenzo Nibali

34.00

Geraint Thomas

34.00

Tejay Van Garderen

Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with a slight favor to Contador) and then a gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.
 
Re: Re:

Publicus said:
Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with slight favor to Contador) and then gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.

Froome is never strong in Catalunya though. Even last year in Romandie he wasn't quite strong enough to win. I'd say the Dauphine will be the best indicator of form. The 2 Tours he's won Froome has ended the Dauphine in very good form. Last year you could see him getting stronger as the week went on.
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Publicus said:
Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with slight favor to Contador) and then gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.

Froome is never strong in Catalunya though. Even last year in Romandie he wasn't quite strong enough to win. I'd say the Dauphine will be the best indicator of form. The 2 Tours he's won Froome has ended the Dauphine in very good form. Last year you could see him getting stronger as the week went on.

I'm going only based on THIS year. Last year was last year.

EDIT: And I will add this is his first year riding as a new father. This is uncharted territory for him in lots of ways (and as a father, I can attest, unless you're an absentee dad, it has an impact). I would add regarding Catalunya, if I recall correctly, he said he was racing to win. In 2015 he was coming off a back injury, which wasn't the case here. So I'll stand by view until he delivers performances that suggests a need to revise the thinking ahead of the next logical measurement point (Dauphine). Remember past is not prologue.
 
Re: Re:

Publicus said:
Pricey_sky said:
Publicus said:
Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with slight favor to Contador) and then gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.

Froome is never strong in Catalunya though. Even last year in Romandie he wasn't quite strong enough to win. I'd say the Dauphine will be the best indicator of form. The 2 Tours he's won Froome has ended the Dauphine in very good form. Last year you could see him getting stronger as the week went on.

I'm going only based on THIS year. Last year was last year.

Fair enough, but the bookies wont just factor in this year though. which is the point I'm making. If Froome is poor in the Dauphine then those odds will change massively, until then they wont change much.
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Publicus said:
Pricey_sky said:
Publicus said:
Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with slight favor to Contador) and then gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.

Froome is never strong in Catalunya though. Even last year in Romandie he wasn't quite strong enough to win. I'd say the Dauphine will be the best indicator of form. The 2 Tours he's won Froome has ended the Dauphine in very good form. Last year you could see him getting stronger as the week went on.

I'm going only based on THIS year. Last year was last year.

Fair enough, but the bookies wont just factor in this year though. which is the point I'm making. If Froome is poor in the Dauphine then those odds will change massively, until then they wont change much.

I'm not a bookie, so my incentives are a wee bit different :D
 
Re: Re:

Publicus said:
I'm not a bookie, so my incentives are a wee bit different :D

That's true! :D but going by whether those rankings are warranted as you mentioned in your first post, at the moment they are. Plus going by this year Froome is actually ahead of schedule compared to last year, he was 45 minutes behind in Catalunya last year! :D
 
Re: Re:

Publicus said:
Taxus4a said:
Rollthedice said:
Froome is present only in twitter pictures taken by himself grinning while his teammates struggle in the backgound. Meanwhile Bertie disappeared in the Basque woods on Arrate emerging after some 7 Watts/kilo to win Pais Vasco. Who's the boss?


We will ee in Dauphine, le Tour, Olimpics and maybe la Vuelta. ;)

At the moment I think Froome is the boss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyQKurDgMg&nohtml5=False

And this is just one indication, but... willian hill TdF 2016 now,


2.20

Chris Froome

3.25

Nairo Quintana

4.50

Alberto Contador

15.00

Fabio Aru

21.00

Richie Porte

31.00

Thibaut Pinot

31.00

Vincenzo Nibali

34.00

Geraint Thomas

34.00

Tejay Van Garderen

Based on performances this year, I think it's even between Contador and Quintana (with a slight favor to Contador) and then a gap to Froome. We'll see if he's improved since his disastrous performance at Catalunya if those rankings are still warranted.

That is quite useless. If Froome wins Romandie and Contador is at home, what we said, that Froome is the boss? NO, we need to wait at least till Dauphine, where both of them will be at a similar shape.

In Romandia I think Froome was quite well, not at his best, but similar other years there, the problem was the rain.
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Publicus said:
I'm not a bookie, so my incentives are a wee bit different :D

That's true! :D but going by whether those rankings are warranted as you mentioned in your first post, at the moment they are. Plus going by this year Froome is actually ahead of schedule compared to last year, he was 45 minutes behind in Catalunya last year! :D

Fair point! Froome is going to do 8.0 w/kg!
 

Latest posts