Multiple bookmakers now offering odds on the Olympic 1500m: Jakob 1.35 (~65%), Kerr 3.5 (~25%), Field (~10%)

Acknowledgement, and a sense of humour is the first step to your recovery. We're here to cleanse your racism.

I know you have a good heart beneath it all.

...was on Kerr in Tokyo to medal.

good money on cheruiyot or the field, its the olympics spectacle brings drama and the unexpected, defenses are rare for a good reason.

i'm feeling no name african

Draft Kings had Jakob at -1000, Kerr at +900, Hocker at +2000, Naguse at +3000 at 7pm tonight. They are now all off the board. I got Kerr at +900 and again at +500. Took the other two too for a little less money.

That's always been the case. Sportsbooks rely on power ratings. They love the NFL because they have access to dozens of sets of reliable power ratings. Just blend them into a consensus number and it's simple to put up a number that will basically split the action. It literally takes them less than 2 minutes to make an NFL number, if you've ever been in those rooms when it happens.

But on other sports it's a totally different story. They don't have solid power ratings. Homemade numbers on women's sports were laughably weak during the 24 years I lived in Las Vegas. I was always the first one to play into those NCAA numbers. Mirage/Treasure Island typically put them up first. No matter how much I wagered they would always move the number 1.5 or 2 points, because they knew that money would flood in on that side. I'm not saying that to pretend I was some huge bettor on all sports. I was not. But on stuff like golf matchups or women's basketball or tennis, etc. they always gave me respect because they knew I had a track record. I was prepared at the outset. Once other guys did the work they would almost always be on the same side. Those games can have severely imbalanced action.

BTW, if you guys want a pick that is heavily touted on SwimSwam, it is Hubert Kos in the 200 backstroke. Many guys there fully expect him to win and think he should be the favorite, but he's being quoted at odds like 6/1 and 13/2, primarily due to high name recognition of the American Ryan Murphy.

That is theft. I looked at their board yesterday and they hadn't put up the odds on that event.

Homemade numbers are gold. For some reason not many people believe me when I describe all the mistakes that sportsbooks made during my decades in Las Vegas. You didn't have to pick winners. It was a mathematical grind.

I am a Jakob fan, but Kerr is surely the bet to make, considering the odds. I would say they have at best (for Jakob) equal chances of winning. In fact, I'm not even sure what Jakob's path to a victory looks like. I don't think he can drop Kerr from the front. I don't really see how he prevents a Budapest 2.0

I agree. Love Jakob, but it's surely 50/50 between him and Kerr, or even Kerr a slight favorite.

The odds would appear to be based on the belief that Jakob was ill in Budapest, and that he's even faster this year.

But Kerr has improved even more than Jakob.

And it has to be said that Jakob does seem to pick up these colds or viruses quite often, and particularly when he is peaking for the occasion, such as a major championship or Monaco, or Oslo several years ago. So it's not exactly impossible he'll pick up another cold in Paris.

Why does everyone assume Kerr is inherently able to out kick Jakob? The latter got beat twice in the last two WCs by a sliver after leading the majority of the race from the front. Kerr was the winner last year but was more than a second off Jakob the year before that in a slower race. Kerr has the better 800m, but Jakob is still light years ahead of Kerr above 1500. If Jakob has even a half second on him at 700-800 and starts ratcheting up, that’s a brief enough stretch going solo that he can manage. And look at the depth of this race. You think anyone is letting that first 700-800 come through in a pedestrian pace? Jakob was 0.27 off of Kerr in Budapest in a 3:29 high race. Jakob said you need to be better than 3:29 to win this year, and I believe that’s because it will be a 3:28 or maybe even high 3:27 race. If so, Jakob wins, and there’s enough depth that Jakob won’t have to do all the work in the front half of the race.

Kerr +900? If you see odds like that! I would consider Jakob a favorite, but Kerr at +900 is serious positive EV. He's at +240, which I'm still tempted to bet.

Bookies are rarely wrong. You just have to remember that they aren’t setting the line based on odds of winning.

My gut is that the field is probably the best bet. go back through the last 10-15 Olympics and ask how often the favorite won. Guys like Rono, cacho,Ngengy, centro, malakoufi , and even Jacob weren’t favorites. They were all in the contender at best category. Heck cram was probably the 84 favorite and we can debate 80…

It is easy to confuse Jacob’s DL dominance and forget that championship racing is different.

Bookies for more niche/less popular sports are often wrong. It's a known thing. It's not worth the time and money to bring in a bunch of track experts to set these odds and constantly adjust based on the latest race and how they looked in the first round and how they looked in the semis.

What do you guys think of this parlay:

https://imgur.com/a/5sb8cV0

What do any of those have to do with the line? That matters when you are predicting big race results. As I said bookies don’t care about predicting race results. They care about making money. Those aren’t the same.

Odds are JI is overpriced because favorites attract money. Kerr is probably also overpriced because the Brit’s are degenerate gambles and people tend to support the home town person. You can give them both poor odds and people will still place money on them.

you realize that nothing you just said makes any sense, right? so why say it?

you asked:

"what does [bookies not paying attention to the sport or devoting any resources to handicapping] have to do with the line?"

um, only everything?? if they don't have models for the sport, and don't spend time building odds for the sport, it means their lines are going to be much more inefficient than something like champions league soccer or NFL which are extremely robust markets with efficient lines.

even top pro bettors can't beat champions league or nfl for more than a few percent (they make up for it with volume bc you can bet so much in those markets). vs track where you could easily see double digit %+ returns bc the LINES ARE SO INEFFICIENT BECAUSE THE BOOKIES DON'T PUT MUCH EFFORT INTO IT BECAUSE IT'S TINY VOLUME AND IRRELEVANT TO THEIR OVERALL BOTTOM LINE. YOU DOLT. please never post here again.

, why do you think casinos move lines? Do you think it is because the odds of an outcome have changed (what you are saying by) or because they are mitigating risk by balancing bets (what I am saying)? You really think someone placing a bet changes the odds of an outcome? You are a moron…

ok so you're just stupid, got it. you do realize that betting volume is heavily correlated with performance, right? so if a certain team, or player, or individual in a track meet, is receiving a large % of betting volume, it's likely that they were previously mispriced and the new line is more accurate than the one before.

like, this isn't difficult to understand. i'm guessing you don't really bet sports (if you do i would love to be your bookie lol) or understand the industry. the days of books "trying to balance the lines" are so long gone, it makes you look completely ignorant thinking that's their business model nowadays. they have so much money and are willing to take on more risk in certain areas.

stuff like olympic track does not move the needle for their business at all. it's basically a ~loss leader just to offer in case some of their vip customers want to bet it. but it's negligible to their business, win or lose. they will still adjust the lines based on the bets that come in, though. but it depends who is betting, e.g. a random fish won't budge it vs someone considered sharp.

why are you in this thread if you don't even understand the industry?

I would hedge with $25 on Nordas (+4000) to win gold.

to put it more simply, yes the odds of the outcome have changed (in the bookie's view) and they are now pricing the market with the new information they received.

Here is a simple example. Caesar's Sportsbook opens up Falcons vs Steelers at pickem, bet either team to win at -110. Billy Walters (the most legendary sports bettor of all time) walks in with a million dollars to bet on the Steelers. So they move the line to Steelers -2 -110. He bets another $500k at this new number. They move the line to 3. Now he walks away.

In your world, the true odds of the outcome would still be 50-50 because that's what the line opened at, whereas in reality, the CLOSING line (as in the last line before the game starts) is much, much, much, sharper than the opening line. And the Steelers are likely 60%+ favorites in reality, since the (sophisticated) betting volume came in on them so heavily.

You are spouting basic fish logic as if you have a clue. Sorry for being harsh you just couldn't be more wrong.