US Open 2015 Bookmaker favorites

Shane and Ko Pin Yi are 10:1 and 11:1. Wouldn't I break even if I bet and spread my risk among the 10 ten players?

These are long odds for top favorites so you can hedge top 8 or top 9 players and still make small money and have big chance if those outside top 10 do not win .
Meaning that few dozen players can win since there is also no guarantee that top 10 will win lol. Shows how strong field is

Also I see Darren's odds shortening to 11/1 now probably cos Willliam Hill is British and lots of Britishers betting on Big Darren

Darren had bad W9B and was off his game in WCOP so I would say watch out for Darren
In fact watch out for those who had poor form or were invisible in few weeks leading up to US Open . Didn't Shane have dry spell leading up to his World Pool Masters win and W9B final ? Didn't Big Ko suffer horrible form pre-W9B losing in 1st round of World Pool Masters and 2 x CBSA events ?:D
 
Jude,

Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't see the logic behind outrageous odds. The tournament is capped at 128 players. So, an even chance for any player should be 128:1. As an inducement to bid on the lesser chance players I can see increasing the odds. I don't get it why Karen Corr's odds are set 500:1, or nearly 4 times the size of the tournament.

Shane and Ko Pin Yi are 10:1 and 11:1. Wouldn't I break even if I bet and spread my risk among the 10 ten players?

I have never liked investing a lot of money to win small...
...I might take a shot with Albin Ouschan at 33-1
Li He Wen at 40-1
Mike Dechaine at 50-1
 
How did you guys get on that site? When I just tried, a big box came up saying I'm in the USA, and its illegal, etc. I couldn't get that box to go away.
 
I forget the rules. Who racks at the Open, the breaker or the loser of the previous match?
 
Jude,

Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't see the logic behind outrageous odds. The tournament is capped at 128 players. So, an even chance for any player should be 128:1. As an inducement to bid on the lesser chance players I can see increasing the odds. I don't get it why Karen Corr's odds are set 500:1, or nearly 4 times the size of the tournament.

Shane and Ko Pin Yi are 10:1 and 11:1. Wouldn't I break even if I bet and spread my risk among the 10 ten players?

I'm not saying I agree with how the odds were dispersed. In many instances, I don't understand the bookie's logic. All I'm saying is how odds work and how he dispersed the odds is pretty sound.

Yes, if all players are equal, chances of winning are 127:1. That said, it's obvious that the players vary. Some have virtually no chance at winning so their odds can be rock bottom (say, 1000:1 even though that's probably higher than reality). Like, if, for example, there are 10 players at pro level and the remaining 118 players are beginners, the odds of winning can rest exclusively with the 10 players and the remaining 118 would share a fraction of .01%.

Regarding specifics, I'd rather not go down that road. Yes, I think Karen Corr's chances are better than .2% but that's as much as I'll offer publicly on a forum. Your betting strategy should focus on players you think can win versus their given odds of winning. The first part of the formula should eliminate most of the field. The second part of the formula is the hard part. Is Shane Van Boening 10:1? Those are pretty strong odds but when you consider he's won the last three, perhaps that's a good bet too.
 
I'm not saying I agree with how the odds were dispersed. In many instances, I don't understand the bookie's logic. All I'm saying is how odds work and how he dispersed the odds is pretty sound.

Yes, if all players are equal, chances of winning are 127:1. That said, it's obvious that the players vary. Some have virtually no chance at winning so their odds can be rock bottom (say, 1000:1 even though that's probably higher than reality). Like, if, for example, there are 10 players at pro level and the remaining 118 players are beginners, the odds of winning can rest exclusively with the 10 players and the remaining 118 would share a fraction of .01%.

Regarding specifics, I'd rather not go down that road. Yes, I think Karen Corr's chances are better than .2% but that's as much as I'll offer publicly on a forum. Your betting strategy should focus on players you think can win versus their given odds of winning. The first part of the formula should eliminate most of the field. The second part of the formula is the hard part. Is Shane Van Boening 10:1? Those are pretty strong odds but when you consider he's won the last three, perhaps that's a good bet too.

Saying that Corr has a .2% chance of winning is the same as saying she has zero chance. Either one is right. Only difference is you can't bet on 0%

I believe the last time a huge longshot won a high profile event it was an invitational and rumor has it, the fix was in.
 
Last edited:
Considering his strong performance recently in a stellar field of monsters, I believe "IF"
I was going to pick a long shot to win the US Open it would be Mike Deshaine at 50-1
:eek:
 
Saying that Corr has a .2% chance of winning is the same as saying she has zero chance. Either one is right. Only difference is you can't bet on 0%

I believe the last time a huge longshot won a high profile event it was an invitational and rumor has it, the fix was in.

Given Corr's performance in events like Turning Stone, I think her chances are better than you think. You can review her resume at men's events, it's pretty impressive. Of course, her chances could be as high as 5% (not saying they are) and it's likely she won't prove me right.

The hardest part in all of this is properly grading every single player in the field. Without something like FargoRate on hand, I simply don't know how anyone can do that. Corr is not the weakest player in the field, that's for sure. But that's part of the problem, I don't know who the weak players are. I don't know how many there are. I don't know where someone like Corr fits on the totem pole.
 
IMO, the best bets are Baby Ko at 25:1 and Kazakis at 150:1. Baby Ko has a great chance of winning, and his odds compared to the other favorites are out of line, imo.

Kazakis has a much smaller chance of winning, but a chance. At 150:1, I think he has the most favorable betting odds of anyone.

How can a US player bet on this? Would any Europeans be willing to make a bet for me/us? I'd like to make both of these bets.
 
IMO, the best bets are Baby Ko at 25:1 and Kazakis at 150:1. Baby Ko has a great chance of winning, and his odds compared to the other favorites are out of line, imo.

Kazakis has a much smaller chance of winning, but a chance. At 150:1, I think he has the most favorable betting odds of anyone.

How can a US player bet on this? Would any Europeans be willing to make a bet for me/us? I'd like to make both of these bets.

you are correct on the kazakis as being best bet there is.....I would like to bet 500 on that one.....
 
I'm not saying I agree with how the odds were dispersed. In many instances, I don't understand the bookie's logic. All I'm saying is how odds work and how he dispersed the odds is pretty sound.

Yes, if all players are equal, chances of winning are 127:1. That said, it's obvious that the players vary. Some have virtually no chance at winning so their odds can be rock bottom (say, 1000:1 even though that's probably higher than reality). Like, if, for example, there are 10 players at pro level and the remaining 118 players are beginners, the odds of winning can rest exclusively with the 10 players and the remaining 118 would share a fraction of .01%.

IMHO, Basically these bookie odds are like stocks/ shares. in listed companies.
Depends a lot on demand in betting market, when demand for player goes up the odds are shortened, eg. Darren now at 11/1 from 16/1 . Other shortened odds include Little Ko (now 20/1 from 25/1 ), Skyler (now 40/1 from 50/1)
So the odds are not a very objective measure of players chances of winning as it depends on bettors sentiments or some 'insider' info/news (like player has injury or health ssues which may or may not be true). They may first start off the odds using some measure like ranking or rating but once up , bettors demand will change the odds:D


IMO, the best bets are Baby Ko at 25:1 and Kazakis at 150:1. Baby Ko has a great chance of winning, and his odds compared to the other favorites are out of line, imo.

Kazakis has a much smaller chance of winning, but a chance. At 150:1, I think he has the most favorable betting odds of anyone.

How can a US player bet on this? Would any Europeans be willing to make a bet for me/us? I'd like to make both of these bets.

You are spot on about Baby Ko. He is now at 20/1. Consecutive semifinal finish in W10B and W9B and recent CBSA event (which had most top Taiwanese, Pinoys)
I would say Kazakis odds should be closer to 50. 150/1 is brutally unfair to him
Kazakis has very high chance of getting into last 8 but winning it is a tough ask. To win a major, need some past experience and finish in last 4 in majors to indicate that he has big match temperament and confidence to win big ones
Eg. Albin was W9B finalist last year and won China Open this year and suddenly, he is now one of favorites in majors
The 2 dozen or so with less than 40/1 have quite good chance of winning. Dechaine and Bergman should be in that group because of home conditions and their recent strong performances in lead up
NVB, Ralf, Rodney should also be in that group . Also Nikos because of his strong performance last year.
So in short around 30 have realistic chance of winning whole thing

BTW anyone knows who is Tammie Jones? Her odds are 750/1
:D
 
I've never bet on sports outside of a high school football book and now on AZ for pool, so I'm a bit naive on some stuff....

When you place a bet at 25:1, and the odds later change to 20:1, are you locked in at 25:1, or does your bet gets moved to wherever the line goes? Thanks.
 
I've never bet on sports outside of a high school football book and now on AZ for pool, so I'm a bit naive on some stuff....

When you place a bet at 25:1, and the odds later change to 20:1, are you locked in at 25:1, or does your bet gets moved to wherever the line goes? Thanks.

You are locked in.
 
Seems we can bet on William Hill in Canada... made a few bets for the hell of it.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-10-23 at 3.57.49 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2015-10-23 at 3.57.49 PM.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 174
Given Corr's performance in events like Turning Stone, I think her chances are better than you think. You can review her resume at men's events, it's pretty impressive. Of course, her chances could be as high as 5% (not saying they are) and it's likely she won't prove me right.

The hardest part in all of this is properly grading every single player in the field. Without something like FargoRate on hand, I simply don't know how anyone can do that. Corr is not the weakest player in the field, that's for sure. But that's part of the problem, I don't know who the weak players are. I don't know how many there are. I don't know where someone like Corr fits on the totem pole.

You aren't on betting if she'll do well. She could.

You're betting on if she'll win. She won't.

That's why the odds are pointless if only to make them attractive enough.
 
Does this site have low limits for all sports? Or just pool?

Maybe they correlate the max win with the prize in the sport? So if they know the US Open only pays 40k or whatever it is for 1st place, then they make the max pay amount much less, to make it less lucrative if a player dumps.

Just a random thought, I can't see the site to investigate for myself.
 
Back
Top