Morning Zlotti. I was in a thread ("pricing" I think) where the feeling was that the bookies mostly follow the TAB odds and jiggle it a bit from there. I wasn't sure if that was correct but a number of former bookies clerks or the like reckoned it was so, the conclusion being that "the market" makes it's own odds and not the bookies (ie it was consensus not maths). This was in reply to me asking for a concrete example of how the individual bookie DECIDES on the opening odds. Can anyone confirm or refute this please?
I'm aware of the "over-round" advantage but am also suspicious that the bookies are trying to psyche us out AS WELL. They know that most punters are frightened of big odds and (especially) big drifters so I wouldn't be surprised to find them deliberately LENGTHENING odds to scare us off from time to time. There are cases where the odds HAVE to be wrong but there is no plunge (ie the punters don't flog the bookies for their mistake). First time I noticed this was when Vintage Crop won the '93 Melbourne Cup.
It had a 60% win record (9 from 15) all between 2800m and 3600m, all at top level, and 100% at the 2 miles. The trainer came 20,000Ks for the race and brought his own jockey to boot. VC opened at about 12s and drifted. My mate in Sydney put $500 on it and I "splashed out" with $200, grinning as it got to 20s on the TAB and won EXACTLY as it should. That year it was much more a "certainty" than Makybe Diva last time and yet no Kerry Packer stepped up with his millions to destroy the bookies. Why not?? It wasn't maths that stopped the big punters but LACK OF CONFIDENCE (doubly "justified" by those odds) I reckon. What do you think?? Bye for now, and good punting.