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.)
(I claim no expertise; what I've written above about the experience levels of bookies could be all wrong. I'd be surprised, though.)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram