US Open 2015 Bookmaker favorites

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Below are Bookmaker William Hill betting odds/ favorites to win US Open 2015
The long odds for Shane and Big Ko of 10 and 11 clearly says there is no clear strong favorite. There are at least few dozen players who can win this
There are some differences when compared to Fargorate- Dechaine, Bergman , Chang Jung Lin, Kazakis ranked below their Fargo rating, Jayson Shaw is rated much higher here than FargoRate

Shane Van Boening
10/1
Pin Yi Ko
11/1
Darren Appleton
16/1
Dennis Orcullo
18/1
Alex Pagulayan
18/1
Jayson Shaw
18/1
Niels Feijen
20/1
Mika Immonen
20/1
Ping Chung Ko
25/1
John Morra
25/1
Thorsten Hohmann
25/1
Warren Kiamco
25/1
Yu Lung Chang
33/1
Albin Ouschan
33/1
Cheng Yu Hsuan
33/1
Li He Wen
40/1
Corey Deuel
40/1
Jeffrey Ignacio
40/1
Johnny Archer
40/1
Jung Lin Chang
40/1
Kai Lun Hsu
40/1
Karl Boyes
40/1
Liu Haitao
40/1
Skyler Woodward
50/1
Billy Thorpe
50/1
Dang Jinhu
50/1
Frankie Hernandez
50/1
Jeremy Jones
50/1
Jeremy Sossei
50/1
John Schmidt
50/1
Mike Davis Jr
50/1
Mike Dechaine
50/1
Nick van den Berg
50/1
Nikos Ekonomopoulos
50/1
Ralf Souquet
50/1
Roberto Gomez
50/1
Rodney Morris
50/1
Shaun Wilkie
50/1
Stevie Moore
66/1
Chu Bingjie
66/1
Donnie Mills
66/1
Earl Strickland
66/1
Efren Reyes
66/1
Justin Bergman
66/1
Kenichi Uchigaki
66/1
Marcus Chamat
66/1
Waleed Majid
80/1
Gabe Owen
80/1
Nguyen Thanh Nam
80/1
Randy Labonte
80/1
Tommy Kennedy
100/1
Cleiton Rocha
100/1
David Alcaide
100/1
Fabio Petroni
100/1
John Cook
100/1
Maksim Dudanets
100/1
Marco Teutscher
100/1
Martin Daigle
100/1
Nguyen Anh Tuan
100/1
Nicholas Brucato
100/1
Oliver Ortmann
100/1
Raj Hundal
125/1
Do Hoang Quan
125/1
Ivo Aarts
125/1
Matt Krah
125/1
Nick Varner
150/1
Adam King
150/1
Alex Kazakis
150/1
Bryan Farah
150/1
Charles Leeper
150/1
Christopher Wilburn
150/1
Francisco Felicilda
150/1
Ruslan Chinakhov
200/1
Ivica Putnik
200/1
Tom D'Alfonso
225/1
Michael Wong
250/1
Do The Kien
250/1
Eddie Richardson
250/1
Francisco Sanchez Ruiz
250/1
Kenneth Brisbon
250/1
Kevin West
250/1
Michael Kang
250/1
Pham Phuong Nam
250/1
Pierfrancesco Garzia
250/1
Xavier Libby
300/1
Eric Gonzalez
300/1
Kyle Richard
300/1
Rey Jan Carmona
300/1
Scott Brazier
300/1
Tommy Lee Muldrow
350/1
Blair Levandowski
350/1
Javier Del Santo
350/1
Joshua Padron
350/1
Robert Lewis
350/1
Steve Fleming
400/1
Brad Shearer
400/1
James Blackburn
500/1
Chad Pike
500/1
Karen Corr
500/1
Robery Ferry
750/1
Tammy Jones

:D
 
Odds like these seriously make me wonder where they're getting their information from. I mean, overall, they're not *way* off. The top of the list has all the favorites but it's hard to imagine why some of these odds are so long for so many other strong players. Cory Deuel at 40:1? Earl Strickland at 66:1? Jeremy Jones at 50:1? Mike Dechaine at 50:1? How can you not bet on Mike Dechaine with a 50:1 payout?
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Odds like these seriously make me wonder where they're getting their information from. I mean, overall, they're not *way* off. The top of the list has all the favorites but it's hard to imagine why some of these odds are so long for so many other strong players. Cory Deuel at 40:1? Earl Strickland at 66:1? Jeremy Jones at 50:1? Mike Dechaine at 50:1? How can you not bet on Mike Dechaine with a 50:1 payout?
Click to expand...


The question is - where can I bet on this?
 
Karen Corr 500:1?

Jude Rosenstock said:
Odds like these seriously make me wonder where they're getting their information from. I mean, overall, they're not *way* off. The top of the list has all the favorites but it's hard to imagine why some of these odds are so long for so many other strong players. Cory Deuel at 40:1? Earl Strickland at 66:1? Jeremy Jones at 50:1? Mike Dechaine at 50:1? How can you not bet on Mike Dechaine with a 50:1 payout?
Click to expand...
 
ctyhntr said:
Karen Corr 500:1?
Click to expand...

There is actually a method to the madness of creating odds. The House usually begins by getting something that's statistically accurate and by that, I mean, the odds must add up. Like, 50:1 roughly translates to 2% or .02. If you have 50 players and they all have equal chances, it would list as 49:1, 2% or .02. 50 (players) x .02 (odds) = 1 or 100%.

If the house wants to make sure a profit is likely, they'll make sure the odds add up to more than 1. A horse race, for example, would typically add up to about 1.2. So if you have 3 horses and all of them have a payout of 3:2 or .4 and all bets are evenly dispersed, the house will bring in more money than it will pay out no matter who wins.

Pool is a very difficult game to put into statistics. There's usually only a handful of players that are deemed capable of winning the US Open and most of the bets are inevitably going to gravitate there and the odds should reflect this. This is the advantage to betting pools that rely on bidding (aka, "a calcutta") or live odds where odds are based on where bets are placed. Either way, it's a better way to protect the house when inaccurate information is rampant.
 
Who's the biggest turkey in the field?
Be funny if the players figure it's time to fix a U.S. Open.
Some of these odds are so retarded, the book deserves to be scalped.:D
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Who's the biggest turkey in the field?
Be funny if the players figure it's time to fix a U.S. Open.
Some of these odds are so retarded, the book deserves to be scalped.:D
Click to expand...
The way these sports books have the betting limits set and the max payouts they will make money no matter who wins.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Who's the biggest turkey in the field?
Be funny if the players figure it's time to fix a U.S. Open.
Some of these odds are so retarded, the book deserves to be scalped.:D
Click to expand...

The way the odds are dispersed actually isn't horrible. The bookie is basically saying someone in the top 15 on his list will win so he's giving long odds for everyone else. They also add-up pretty cleanly to 1.72 which is probably the best odds I've seen posted on azb.

Yeah, given most bets will probably gravitate to SVB, Earl and Dechaine, there's a good chance he'll lose money if one of them wins but anyone else, he's probably making a profit.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
So put a 5k bet on 750 : 1 and let everyone else bet on whomever.
Everybody goes home in a limousine.
Click to expand...

More probably going to the joint in a police van...
...some snooker players have been charged.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
So put a 5k bet on 750 : 1 and let everyone else bet on whomever.
Everybody goes home in a limousine.
Click to expand...
I just checked one of the sports books they have a max payout of 10k ‎€ for this event.
I am pretty sure most of the other books have very similar max payouts.
 
There's probably a reason they have MD at 50:1.

Cinderella stories aren't very common in pool, and the bookmakers aren't stupid.
 
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?

Jude Rosenstock said:
There is actually a method to the madness of creating odds. The House usually begins by getting something that's statistically accurate and by that, I mean, the odds must add up. Like, 50:1 roughly translates to 2% or .02. If you have 50 players and they all have equal chances, it would list as 49:1, 2% or .02. 50 (players) x .02 (odds) = 1 or 100%.

If the house wants to make sure a profit is likely, they'll make sure the odds add up to more than 1. A horse race, for example, would typically add up to about 1.2. So if you have 3 horses and all of them have a payout of 3:2 or .4 and all bets are evenly dispersed, the house will bring in more money than it will pay out no matter who wins.

Pool is a very difficult game to put into statistics. There's usually only a handful of players that are deemed capable of winning the US Open and most of the bets are inevitably going to gravitate there and the odds should reflect this. This is the advantage to betting pools that rely on bidding (aka, "a calcutta") or live odds where odds are based on where bets are placed. Either way, it's a better way to protect the house when inaccurate information is rampant.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top