[byronbb]

If I have a 3 way ML of +225 +160 +130 is it a correct conversion to a ML where the draw pushes to a no vig of
-+141?

The process being you convert the 3 way to % without vig then divide each side by the sum of the two sides.

.27/(.27+.38) = .415 or 41.5%

Is this sound?

[FourLengthsClear]

The mathematics are correct but (assuming we are talking about soccer) there are some issues with the rationale of just pro-rating the win odds of each team.

[byronbb]

The mathematics are correct but (assuming we are talking about soccer) there are some issues with the rationale of just pro-rating the win odds of each team.

1st period hockey.

[RickySteve]

The mathematics are correct but (assuming we are talking about soccer) there are some issues with the rationale of just pro-rating the win odds of each team.

Why?

[donjuan]

The mathematics are correct but (assuming we are talking about soccer) there are some issues with the rationale of just pro-rating the win odds of each team.

I'm with Ricky Steve in wanting to know why there would be issues with that.

[FourLengthsClear]

Why?

Two issues really, one specific to the odds listed by the OP and one more general.

The +160 shown would be very low for a 90-min draw in a soccer game which would be indicative that something was "up" in terms of this game.

More generally, soccer odds tend to be weighted towards the favourite i.e. Betting blindly you would lose more betting all underdogs than all favourites. This dates back to the bad old days when the big UK books did not accept single/straight bets and had the market power to insist on e.g. minimum trebles/three-teamers for home wins. The effect is much reduced these days but it is still the case that 3-way odds are deliberately weighted.

[RickySteve]

So the games are rigged and the deepest markets in the world have gross inefficiencies.

You must be rich.

[FourLengthsClear]

So the games are rigged and the deepest markets in the world have gross inefficiencies.

You must be rich.

Is is possible for you to have a discussion on a civil basis?

Some matches are rigged, yes and a match where the draw odds are +160 has a high probability of being so.

Odds which have upwards of 9% overround are always going to be grossly inefficient, no? 12X odds offered by traditional books are weighted. You would have lost more more by blindly betting all EPL/English 1st Division
underdogs than all favourites in every season since 1979 (and probably much longer than that but that is where my data starts). Even a cursory glance at a random selection of matches on Betfair compared to the odds offered by Ladbrokes or Coral will highlight this.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Now I'm intrigued.

Why would a 9% overround necessarily result in inefficiency?

What is the precise probability that a match with draw odds of +160 is rigged?

Thanks in advance.

[FourLengthsClear]

Now I'm intrigued.

Why would a 9% overround necessarily result in inefficiency?

What is the precise probability that a match with draw odds of +160 is rigged?

Thanks in advance.

In any market, an increase in cost (in this case juice/vig/overround) decreases efficiency. I think this is pretty much universally accepted.

I have absolutely no idea on the precise probability of such a match the match being rigged. "Rigged" is possibly too strong a term anyway in a case where a draw represents a good result for both teams (usually in late season league matches).

[MonkeyF0cker]

In any market, an increase in cost (in this case juice/vig/overround) decreases efficiency. I think this is pretty much universally accepted.

I have absolutely no idea on the precise probability of such a match the match being rigged. "Rigged" is possibly too strong a term anyway in a case where a draw represents a good result for both teams (usually in late season league matches).

How many would-be participants in those markets do you estimate are dissuaded by the higher costs? By your logic, horse racing markets MUST be incredibly inefficient with most takeouts approaching 20%.

If you have "no idea," how can you make your previous statement?

[FourLengthsClear]

a)How many would-be participants in those markets do you estimate are dissuaded by the higher costs? By your logic, horse racing markets MUST be incredibly inefficient with most takeouts approaching 20%.

b) If you have "no idea," how can you make your previous statement?

a) Very good question. There is still a significant portion of the market which bets into these 12X odds even though there are often much better (12X) odds available at other books or in alternative markets like Asian Handicaps. My viewpoint might be somewhat skewed, being from the UK, due to the existence of betting shops here where you can see queues of people lining up every Saturday to put on their £50 5 team parlays and such. By and large, these people have never heard of Pinnacle, don't really get the concept of an exchange and in all likelihood wouldn't even know that Ladbrokes/Coral 12X odds have a double digit overround.

This could be viewed as a UK specific historical artifact which is somewhat disconnected from the deeper and more volatile vehicles that exist nowadays, except that when one looks at the 12X odds offered by a book which is more focussed on the Continental European market (Bwin) you can see the same thing - 12X odds are both less volatile and shaded.

When viewed this way, you can consider that overall markets for (major) soccer matches are highly efficient but that there are bet types that do not necessarily move in tandem despite being highly correlated.

Horse racing markets in the US compared to the UK and Australia would provide an interesting study due to the different ways that markets operate and are regulated. I would be shocked if the UK did not prove to be the most efficient however due to the depth of competition and exchange liquidity. Disagree?

b) If have no idea because we are not talking about a real matchup, the odds posted by the OP did not even refer to a soccer match. +160 does not fall within a normal market range for a draw in soccer, in any competition.

[subs]

thanks FLC, i have heard it mentioned a few times but never looked at it.

do u think this bias applies to the better books, like pinny; so when playing off pinny's no vig lines on 12X, would u allow a bigger margin for the dog.

on a related Q, which books do people consider the market for footy?

thanks, good discussion.

[FourLengthsClear]

thanks FLC, i have heard it mentioned a few times but never looked at it.

do u think this bias applies to the better books, like pinny; so when playing off pinny's no vig lines on 12X, would u allow a bigger margin for the dog.

on a related Q, which books do people consider the market for footy?

thanks, good discussion.

Pinny play with 'straight bat' and there is no discernible bias but there is for the big Asians, albeit much less pronounced than for the UK books.

I am fairly sure that the consensus would be that Betfair and SBOBet are the best proxies for "the market".

[byronbb]

To continue with my OP I was wondering if it was possible to create 3 way hockey lines from Pinny's Draw and ML lines. Is it correct to do teamA_ML_win%-(teamA_ML_win% * Draw%) to get TeamA's 3-way win %??

Also If Pinny is dealing 0.5 handicaps such as in 1st period. Is a parlay of the ML fav with the underdog handicap a bet on the tie? At least in theory ie can we draw tie prob conclusions?