DOH! Should have placed my bets early. They have now redone some of the odds on players.
Shane VanBoening is now 150-1 instead of 500-1. DOH!
Shane VanBoening is now 150-1 instead of 500-1. DOH!
IPT- Vegas Betting Odds
- Thread starter Nostroke
- Start date
Huge Odds Change
I was going to bet on Shane Van Boening and Jason Miller and the odds went from 500/1 on both of these guys to 150/1 and 200/1 in less than 3 hours. Someone got a wake up call or reality check I guess. Oh well I still placed a small bet, but really wish I could have gotten 500/1 odds on these guys.
I was going to bet on Shane Van Boening and Jason Miller and the odds went from 500/1 on both of these guys to 150/1 and 200/1 in less than 3 hours. Someone got a wake up call or reality check I guess. Oh well I still placed a small bet, but really wish I could have gotten 500/1 odds on these guys.
I like larry nevel to win it all, i saw him play in orland park and he played a match against adam benke. He never missed except for the break but even thats surprising. He is my pick to win it all!
The lines are there for a reason. A top guy will win it and that will be that.
There are some lines that are not comparable to how players play but in the end the cream ALWAYS rises.
I would be interested more in betting on some of the longshots to advance a few rounds that to win it all.
Even if one of the undervalued guys hits a gear they will have to mantain it against the best in the world for a prolonged time. Its not a 8 round event over a few days. The thing lasts I believe 9 days or so.
SVB and Jason Miller are likely to make a splash but they will not win.
I think someone like Hohman is a likely winner. He will take the whole event serious and will stay focused even while in Vegas.
Thinking about it ....who has been the biggest major tournament upset winner??
Tommy Kennedy?
Hohmann?
There are some lines that are not comparable to how players play but in the end the cream ALWAYS rises.
I would be interested more in betting on some of the longshots to advance a few rounds that to win it all.
Even if one of the undervalued guys hits a gear they will have to mantain it against the best in the world for a prolonged time. Its not a 8 round event over a few days. The thing lasts I believe 9 days or so.
SVB and Jason Miller are likely to make a splash but they will not win.
I think someone like Hohman is a likely winner. He will take the whole event serious and will stay focused even while in Vegas.
Thinking about it ....who has been the biggest major tournament upset winner??
Tommy Kennedy?
Hohmann?
TannerPruess said:DOH! Should have placed my bets early. They have now redone some of the odds on players.
Shane VanBoening is now 150-1 instead of 500-1. DOH!
dakota said:
I't's probably our own fault = Looks like they were monitoring this site and we snitched ourselves off and smartened them up and so they changed the odds accordingly.
Incredible disparity between the odds of the two Chinese.
Fu looked slightly the better player when I've seen them and has the better record,yet.....
Jianbo Fu.....400/1.
Lu Wei.........125/1.
In my book I'd have them both around the 150/1 mark.They are both very capable of going a long way.
Fu looked slightly the better player when I've seen them and has the better record,yet.....
Jianbo Fu.....400/1.
Lu Wei.........125/1.
In my book I'd have them both around the 150/1 mark.They are both very capable of going a long way.
Woohoo! I am dead last, there is only 1 way to go and that is up, lol. Although, I don't see Ryan Keller's name on there and he is an APA 6, so I suppose I am actually above someone. Oh wait, I see him at 350/1. That's pretty funny. He's above Stan Tourangeau!
And Teddy Garrahan is 100/1, above everyone that kicked his bottom in both Seattle Q's, including my husband and Mike Vidas, lol.
It is interesting how everyone was ranked. Jackie Broadhurst has one title that I can see under her name...no WPBA wins or qualifiers won. I wonder how she placed so high with all the women? Monica Webb is the top-ranked US player on the WPBA. Why is she so low?
It will be interesting how everyone ranks after this tournament. I guess they will have more accurate odds then.
And Teddy Garrahan is 100/1, above everyone that kicked his bottom in both Seattle Q's, including my husband and Mike Vidas, lol.
It is interesting how everyone was ranked. Jackie Broadhurst has one title that I can see under her name...no WPBA wins or qualifiers won. I wonder how she placed so high with all the women? Monica Webb is the top-ranked US player on the WPBA. Why is she so low?
It will be interesting how everyone ranks after this tournament. I guess they will have more accurate odds then.
Last edited:
Voodoo Daddy
One Pocket 101
Nostroke said:
Best bets
Nice lil cluster here;
Sansouci, George 66/1
Owen, Gabe 66/1
Breedlove, George 66/1
How do ya not play a lil here;
Saez, Rob 150/1
Worse Bets? Are there any? I didnt see my name on there, LMFAO!!!
WOW...wish I was goin' now
memikey said:
btw: Fu and Liu had their Visa's rejected first time around (thanks US government
) but today Fu got his visa after a lot of pushing for a 2nd interview. Thanks to the IPT for sending the embassy faxes to try to help.Unfortunately Liu Wei was again rejected on his 2nd attempt today so he won't be going barring a miracle. Apparently because he's not married, doesn't own houses, work for a company etc. Way to go bureaucrats for ruining a pro-player's dream of a career.
Mike,
Keep in mind that Liu Wei did beat Fu in the final quite convincingly 10-5. He's not the shot maker Fu is, Fu being a former National Snooker Champion, but he's pretty focused and studies the table hard.
I expect Fu's odds will come in a bit. I think anyone who's over 300:1 who gets a little money put on them is likely to narrow quickly.
Colin
Couple of things ...
First, the odds were probably generated, for the most part, by taking historical data off the internet, so Champion players that haven't won many tournaments where it is not recorded for posterity on the net will probably have greater odds than one where their wins are more on the net.
No one has the time to manually gather all the information on 200 players and analyze it by hand to set odds.
Second, yes their are a great number of 'Champions' out there, and they play well, but face it, when they are faced with a long hard road to winning, playing other champions, several of them, many will fall by the wayside before reaching the end. This is the reason for greater odds on some players, yes they play well, but can they really beat 8-14 players that play just as well or better than themselves? Plus the fact, some players will be 'on', and some won't.
I can guarantee you Gabe (66-1) would not spot James Walden (500-1)
ANYTHING IN 8 OR 9 BALL, but might spot James a ball in 1 hole. People
believe just because Scott Frost excels in 1 hole, that that must be true for 8 and 9 ball too, but that is not the case. He does not play 8 or 9 ball as well, and Frost will tell you that himself. Brian Groce at 500-1 plays 8 and 9 ball just as well as Frost does. I say that having seen all of these players play on multiple occasions, and I have played Gabe and Groce on more than 1 occasion.
First, the odds were probably generated, for the most part, by taking historical data off the internet, so Champion players that haven't won many tournaments where it is not recorded for posterity on the net will probably have greater odds than one where their wins are more on the net.
No one has the time to manually gather all the information on 200 players and analyze it by hand to set odds.
Second, yes their are a great number of 'Champions' out there, and they play well, but face it, when they are faced with a long hard road to winning, playing other champions, several of them, many will fall by the wayside before reaching the end. This is the reason for greater odds on some players, yes they play well, but can they really beat 8-14 players that play just as well or better than themselves? Plus the fact, some players will be 'on', and some won't.
I can guarantee you Gabe (66-1) would not spot James Walden (500-1)
ANYTHING IN 8 OR 9 BALL, but might spot James a ball in 1 hole. People
believe just because Scott Frost excels in 1 hole, that that must be true for 8 and 9 ball too, but that is not the case. He does not play 8 or 9 ball as well, and Frost will tell you that himself. Brian Groce at 500-1 plays 8 and 9 ball just as well as Frost does. I say that having seen all of these players play on multiple occasions, and I have played Gabe and Groce on more than 1 occasion.
Colin Colenso said:btw: Fu and Liu had their Visa's rejected first time around (thanks US government
Unfortunately Liu Wei was again rejected on his 2nd attempt today so he won't be going barring a miracle. Apparently because he's not married, doesn't own houses, work for a company etc. Way to go bureaucrats for ruining a pro-player's dream of a career.
Mike,
Keep in mind that Liu Wei did beat Fu in the final quite convincingly 10-5. He's not the shot maker Fu is, Fu being a former National Snooker Champion, but he's pretty focused and studies the table hard.
I expect Fu's odds will come in a bit. I think anyone who's over 300:1 who gets a little money put on them is likely to narrow quickly.
Colin
What a downer!! Gutted for the lad,what a terrible and over the top bureaucratic attitude by the USA
Yes,agree with the rest of what you say mate and sense the tone that you generally agree that they should both be approximately the same odds as each other,whatever those odds should be.Again good luck to yerself
Colin Colenso said:btw: Fu and Liu had their Visa's rejected first time around (thanks US government
Unfortunately Liu Wei was again rejected on his 2nd attempt today so he won't be going barring a miracle. Apparently because he's not married, doesn't own houses, work for a company etc. Way to go bureaucrats for ruining a pro-player's dream of a career.
Mike,
Keep in mind that Liu Wei did beat Fu in the final quite convincingly 10-5. He's not the shot maker Fu is, Fu being a former National Snooker Champion, but he's pretty focused and studies the table hard.
I expect Fu's odds will come in a bit. I think anyone who's over 300:1 who gets a little money put on them is likely to narrow quickly.
Colin
Don't blame me...I didn't vote for anyone who is in, or who has ever been in, office.
The odds-maker(s) try to split the betting money evenly so they make their cut without wild fluctuations in their bankroll. As each bet comes in, this new information affects the odds. I'm glad to see a line being established.
I don't think there'll be any rolling over, as the prize money/bet payoff ratio is kept in line with the small betting limits.
But I don't gamble with bookies so...good luck people.
Jeff Livingston
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Harvywallbanger said:
I can't confirm the 28 racks but I can confirm that I have a tape where he runs something like ten racks against Archer and Mizerak and comments the whole time what he is thinkins while he is running out - no edits.
Also we booked him for an exhibition a few years ago - 8 ball. My wife imposed one rule - David was not allowed to play safe. For three days I watched him run so many racks of 8-ball that I got dizzy. He seemed to have an endless supply of fantastic, impossible-looking shots.
Matlock in stroke is a world beater's world beater!
John
TannerPruess said:DOH! Should have placed my bets early. They have now redone some of the odds on players.
Shane VanBoening is now 150-1 instead of 500-1. DOH!
The odds will be adjusted as bets are collected. The original list was just to get things going. The final odds (at the close of betting) will be different, and based on the total bets spread across the field. Do not forget that the #1 rule in this game is that Stan James makes money on wagers. They do that very well and I expect this to be no different.
So here's a question. Let's say that Tanner places a $100 bet on Shane when his odds are 500:1. Then, at 'post time' Shanes odds are 100:1. Shane wins the tournament. What does Tanner get paid, at 500:1 or 100:1 ? Methinks it would be 100:1 , just like at the horse track (it doesn't matter about the odds at the time of the bet, it matters what the odds are at post time).
Dave
DaveK said:
NO NO NO- you get the odds at the time of your bet and it is shown as such in your 'open' bets.
Looks like this.
16 Jul 2006 23:38 368/364 1.45
1.45 W
P Single North American Open 8 Ball Championship : Outright Boening, Shane Van 500/1 Open Open 2.90.
It got a lil scrambled but it shows I have $1.45 to win and $1.45 for 1st through 4th at 1/4 odds also.
Last edited: