View Single Post
  #8072  
Old 16.03.2017, 14:25
newtoswitz's Avatar
newtoswitz newtoswitz is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 2,222
Groaned at 34 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 2,497 Times in 1,163 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Yes I agree I am over simplifying, but I am not looking at this only mathematically. I am saying, at a high level, when you view statistically the outcomes of events historically that bookies have offered odds on then overall the bookmaker will have a high percentage of success In the idea that they offered the lowest odds on that outcome, i.e. They got it 'right'. This value they are putting on it is as you say based on their own initial prediction along with a host of combinations of how the crowd bets along with hedging factors to mitigate loss. But however you analyze it, when you stand back and say 'how many times in the last 10 years did the bookmakers odds reflect In reality what actually happened' the result will be fairly high. Therefore bookies are good predictors of events at a laymans level.

Found some evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...a-gambler.html
You keep repeating the same thing but ignoring the point that both StirB and I are making - the bookies don't make the odds except as an intial bid (where they almost always play it very safe, so actually aren't very accurate).

The market makes the odds, and odds are frequently good predictors of events because of crowd knowledge - bookies are just the platform.

Read The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, it's a bit long-winded but it covers loads of examples (and counter examples) of odds and expectations.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post: