Analysis of 2010 WDC and WCC Odds

[WhiteBlue]

Updates for Malaysia



Vettel storming to the front and Schumacher going up to 35 in the odds. Red Bull take over the mantle from Ferrari as favorite.



Vettel and Alonso change the favorite position. Schumacher goes to the back and displaces Rosberg from last place.



In the relative car odds Red Bull are now the new standard with Ferrari dropping to 1,16. McLaren improving to 1,67 and Mercedes slightly to 7,56 due to Rosberg's competitive showing.



In the car corrected driver odds Rosberg makes good progress by achieving better results than the Merc really is capable off at the moment. Schumacher sinks to second tier due to lack of results. I'm not sure that Schumacher will maintain that position. I think there was also some bad luck involved. Interesting development.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Once again fascinating stuff WB!
It is greatly appreciated!

[WhiteBlue]

I guess that Vettel has stamped his authority over Webber and that Webber will loose the psychological battle for the championship sometime in the next three or four races.

I think that comment is a bit far fetched. Whilst Webber I am sure will be kicking himself for not shutting the door and Vettel drove a great race you cannot after 3 races say anyone has stamped their authority. Going by your reasoning we might believe that Alonso, Hamilton , Schumacer, Liuzzi Petrov etc etc just go home as they are behind their teammates in the points. Lets wait until mid season to see what happens eh?
P.S If it interests you I do believe that Vettel IS the better driver so dont even bother with the whole Australian -Webber thing.

Every session I have seen with equal material this year Vettel did beat Webber. Only the intermediate gamble in Malaysia saw Webbo take pole just to loose the lead again in the first lap to Vettel. Webber's story at the off season was his stronger showing in 2009 after his recovery from his injuries. So by his own reckoning or in the view of his supporters in 2010 he was supposed to be the stronger of the Red Bull drivers. It did not turn out that way. Vettel is 10 years younger, has more GP wins, lost two victories this year by pure bad luck and made no single mistake. It must be a bit intimidating to have this guy as a team mate if you have WDC ambitions of your own.

Stats viewtopic.php?p=160041#p160041

Vettel is now leading the odds with 2,6 versus Webber 15. They started the season with 7,3 versus 20,3. So the general public shares your view and thinks that the likelihood of Vettel beating Webber is six times higher. This ratio was only three times at the opening of the season but after three races Vettel has doubled his lead. If the trend continues I would expect Webber's WDC claim to crumble under the avalanche of adversity. But perhaps you have different observations and perhaps Webber has a mental strength that he will not get frustrated.

If we use the normalized view dialing out the relative car strength you still see Webber as the weakest WDC contender versus Vettel as the strongest. No other pair of team mates shows such an extreme spread of normalized odds.

[Chaparral]

... Thing is there should be multiple winners this year I expect Alonso to win again, Webber to win 1-2, Vettel to win 1-2 more, Rosberg to make a breakthrough win and possibly even Kubica - to say that Vettel has the wood on Webber forget it ace...

[WhiteBlue]

I expect Alonso to win again, Webber to win 1-2, Vettel to win 1-2 more, Rosberg to make a breakthrough win and possibly even Kubica - to say that Vettel has the wood on Webber forget it ace..

Chaparral, you are pretty lonely in expecting Webber to win as much as Vettel, but I think that is the bias which can be expected by an Aussie and Webber fan. Rosberg is doing better than his car obviously and that is true of Kubica or even Sutil as well. I'm not so sure that Brawn will use the rather scarce resources at Mercedes to improve the car relative to Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren. So a maiden win of Rosberg and Kubica I would not give more than a 50% chance.

To call my effort of betting odds analysis bullshit is a bit amusing. I bet you have no methodical or factual criticism to offer. So please forgive me if I disregard the comment as trolling that it most likely is. In the unlikely case of some informed contribution from your side I will be delighted to answer any points you may rise with my methods.

[Chaparral]

To call my effort of betting odds analysis bullshit is a bit amusing. I bet you have no methodical or factual criticism to offer. So please forgive me if I disregard the comment as trolling that it most likely is. In the unlikely case of some informed contribution from your side I will be delighted to answer any points you may rise with my methods.

It is total bullshit - its no different to the way bookies set odds on the ponies - its all based on historic data including time trials and the odd on track betting scam - you may as well check your crystal ball its about as useless. Just for the record I dont have a bias towards any driver the more winners the better the show for us consumers but trying to base it on a 'loose science' around a bookies system give me a break. F1 is no different than the ponies in a lot of aspects - situations change dramatically from race to race, accidents happen, cars break etc etc etc and I stick by the earlier post Alonso to win again, Webber 1-2 as will Vettel, breakthrough for Rosberg and possibly Kubica - but again its all dependent on circumstances not bloody ridiculous betting systems

[WhiteBlue]

To call my effort of betting odds analysis bullshit is a bit amusing. I bet you have no methodical or factual criticism to offer. So please forgive me if I disregard the comment as trolling that it most likely is. In the unlikely case of some informed contribution from your side I will be delighted to answer any points you may rise with my methods.

It is total bullshit - its no different to the way bookies set odds on the ponies - its all based on historic data including time trials and the odd on track betting scam - you may as well check your crystal ball its about as useless. Just for the record I dont have a bias towards any driver the more winners the better the show for us consumers but trying to base it on a 'loose science' around a bookies system give me a break. F1 is no different than the ponies in a lot of aspects - situations change dramatically from race to race, accidents happen, cars break etc etc etc and I stick by the earlier post Alonso to win again, Webber 1-2 as will Vettel, breakthrough for Rosberg and possibly Kubica - but again its all dependent on circumstances not bloody ridiculous betting systems

I'm answering the post in the appropriate thread. And no, I don't think that betting odds are useless for estimating the prospects of drivers and cars.

Betting odds represent the confidence of broad parts of the public in the winning chances of drivers and teams. Naturally they are based on historic experience but clearly as well on perceived potential. Bookies may have their own reason to manipulate odds but generally it is a business and the odds must reflect the money put on the different drivers or teams to allow a profit for the bookie.

The way I do the driver odds as a composite from three different large national betting services insures a fairly balanced view preventing any national bias towards German, British or Spanish drivers.

For some discussions it is also interesting to consider the perceived chances of the teams to appreciate the strength of the cars. For those issues I'm using WilliamsHill WCC odds as there were no significant differences to other bookies. In oder to express the relative strength of the car to a base line I devide the car odds by the odd of the current lowest competitor. Thus the WCC leader is always expressed by a one. The following competitors are rated with their chances proportional to the leader. I don't think there is a fairer system to express the relative strength of the cars to each other. Naturally those strengths include performance, reliability and development potential as perceived by the betters.

For the discussion of absolute driver capabilities (independent of the respective car they drive) I do correct the driver odds by dividing them through the relative car odds. I agree that this is a fairly artificial way of rating drivers. Nevertheless I do it because the results can be used to discuss the absolute merits of drivers. It is more fact related then comparing their actions in the last race or their current championship standing.

[lebesset]

well I for one appreciate WB's efforts
but I do accept that the result of his labours is fairly crude because he has no access to statistics that weight the figures like

how big is the fan base in each country
to what extent do punters bet in their home market
what proportion of punters bet

etc

I think we would all accept that most of the bets contain an element of wishful thinking , people like to say that they had a punt on the local favourite when he has won

WB could Email the bookies and get a lot of the extra information , and of course they would tell him , wouldn't they

I think this is informative as we can get , so take it in the spirit in which it is given

[dave kumar]

I think some people here are missing the point. WB's efforts are to be applauded because he is collecting data. You may argue that it is spurious to draw the conclusions of championship winner from this but it is still data and interesting in itself.

Betting odds can be likened to a large survey. They have the advantage over a questionnaire in that people are less likely to give a flippant answer if they have to put money where their mouth is. So actually it is quite a good form of surveying.

I am personally interested in this data to see how long it takes for the odds to pick the championship winner when viewed retrospectively. Will they always lag behind expert opinion? Or can such a large sample of opinion mask the individual bias and give a better predictor?

Please carry on WB. I thank anybody on this site who contributes to the body of data, which we can then argue over at our leisure.

[Mr Alcatraz]

WB... How dare you post anything that isn't nerd-worthy

[strad]

To call my effort of betting odds analysis bullshit is a bit amusing. I bet you have no methodical or factual criticism to offer. So please forgive me if I disregard the comment as trolling that it most likely is. In the unlikely case of some informed contribution from your side I will be delighted to answer any points you may rise with my methods

Nice to see that some people/things don't change..Adds a bit of solidity in a liquid world...What's the saying? There's lies. damn lies and statistics?
We've gone round about this before. Please refrain from the biased useless statistics.

[strad]

It's my own feeling, after following F1 for over 40 years, is that stats are real nice after the fact, great for Monday morning quarterbacks, but almost useless in predicting the future..Of course that's, just one old mans opinion.

[WhiteBlue]

Strad, this has nothing to do with statistics. I'm just tracking the odds and put them into a graphic representation. On top I'm toying a bit with WDC and WCC odds to find out how the odds would look if all drivers were in the same cars. There is quite a number of people who are interested in the numbers and unless I record them they are not available at the end of the season when we can appreciate how our personal predictions turn out. If you are not interested you do not have to follow or comment it. I'm actually quite amazed how sensitive the betting odds react to any news and even the results of qualifying. Btw the driver with the lowest quote in the same car is the same who was rated highest by the team principals in a January 2010 vote, Vettel.

[Poleman]

I cannot think anything that is more car-related than the team director specifying they brought six upgrades that earned them 0.3 seconds advantage....

If you look at a selection of the fastest lap times and the top fastest laps in the race then McLaren were still the thick-end of a second away. Nothing really changed. I don't know where they are getting these lap time gain figures from in all honesty.

IIRC, it was Paddy Lowe or some other guy from Mclaren stating that they were not looking at the ride height system as the only way of improvement, since they believed other areas of development could bring them higher yields.

That was Jonathan Neale, and if he really believes that then I'm astonished quite frankly. I think he was just being a bit diversionary though.

So far, Mclaren seems the only top team to have upped their game so far, so we I also don't understand the comments that state that it is easier to make lost ground back from a major screw up like the early MP4-24....

When you're a long way behind and a couple of seconds off the pace, as McLaren were at the beginning of last season, it's relatively easy to make some quick changes to get noticeable increases in speed. Once you are just a few tenths off per lap it gets much more difficult to find big leaps in performance relative to the fastest cars. The 80/20 rule is well known and well proven, and Mike Gasgoyne at Lotus has talked about how there is a lot of improvements they can make to their car that they know will gain them a lot of lap time versus where they are now.

I am posting this here because this conversation doesnt belong (yet again) in the MP4-25 thread.

So segedunum i dont see myself where you get those assumptions from yourself as well.From Bahrain and on McLaren's fastest laps on the race was 0.1 and 0.6 seconds respectively behind the top time.I dont see the full second you are talking about.As for Malaysia Hamilton couldnt improve his best due to Sutil who was more or less setting his pace,and Button was on dead tyres.
Also where did you find that in Bahrain the MP4-25 was a couple (?) of seconds behind??It was like 1.2 sec at best and that prior to bad setup and track characteristics.I can provide you with the lap times tables if you want as well...
Also the updates in Sepang was quite as worthy of a 0.3 and with a better qualifying position for McLaren you would see it more clearly.

[Chaparral]

Strad, this has nothing to do with statistics

Then why bother with the graphs - its irrelevant anyway