Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Yeh, thats why I said 20, which is unlikely enough to give you very good odds.
Pretty dreadful I reckon!
You have to go for the long shot to get good odds, and it is quite do-able
Bizarrely, I was looking at the betting before the Sakir GP last year and there was a special with Russell to lead by the end of the first lap and Norris to make up five places on the same first lap. 25/1 or something. i was tempted but thought it would never happen.
That just tells us that no one is betting on Lando to win. If a couple of billionaires decided to have some fun and each betted a million on Lando over a few days, those odds would drop through the floor!
But not even millionaires do that. That´s the reason bets are an extremelly good indicative, people talk loads of BS to support his favourite driver or bash his rivals, journalist are equally partial and say loads of BS too, but one thing is talking and a very different thing is risking your own money for something to happen. Then people do what they really think will happen, contrary to forums or conversations when people usually do not defend what they think will happen, but want they want to happen.
Only one think stops fanboyism, the risk of loosing your own money
Betting odds only indicate the level of risk to the bookie, not the likelihood of an outcome.
The level of risk is dictated by the likelikhood of an outcome, both are directly proportional
Actually betting odds are the more reliable poll you can find, the only one where people is 100% sincere because it´s their own money what is at risk. Make a survey and you´ll get some result. After getting a reply ask the ones polled to put their own money on that result and you´ll see how results change drastically.
Polls only show what people would like to happen, bets show what people really think will happen
But not even millionaires do that. That´s the reason bets are an extremelly good indicative, people talk loads of BS to support his favourite driver or bash his rivals, journalist are equally partial and say loads of BS too, but one thing is talking and a very different thing is risking your own money for something to happen. Then people do what they really think will happen, contrary to forums or conversations when people usually do not defend what they think will happen, but want they want to happen.
Only one think stops fan***ism, the risk of loosing your own money
Betting odds only indicate the level of risk to the bookie, not the likelihood of an outcome.
The level of risk is dictated by the likelikhood of an outcome, both are directly proportional
Actually betting odds are the more reliable poll you can find, the only one where people is 100% sincere because it´s their own money what is at risk. Make a survey and you´ll get some result. After getting a reply ask the ones polled to put their own money on that result and you´ll see how results change drastically.
Polls only show what people would like to happen, bets show what people really think will happen
Betting odds show the level of risk to the bookie. If I ask for odds on Mazepin winning the title, I might get 1000/1 and I put a £1000 on it. Bookie's happy because even though it's a remote chance of me winning, he can afford it. If 1000 people ask for the same bet over the course of a few days, do they all get 1000/1? No they don't, the odds will shorten quite quickly. Why? Is it any more likely that Mazepin will win? No, of course not. But it's an outside chance and that would mean the bookie stands to lose a £1billion (1000 people each putting £1000 on at 1000/1).
Yes, that's an extreme example, but that's how it works. The odds only tell you where other people are betting their money - the shorter the odds, the more money that has been bet on that outcome. The "favourite" at a horse race (or any other event covered by a bookie) is called that not because it is more likely to win, but because it has the most bets put on it.
Odds do not show likelihood of an outcome, they show the risk to the bookie of having to pay winnings.
When the bookie opens his book, he'll publish odds based on where he thinks the risk is i.e. what he thinks is the most likely outcome. But from that point on, the odds move to ensure the bookie doesn't pay out more than he takes in.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Betting odds only indicate the level of risk to the bookie, not the likelihood of an outcome.
The level of risk is dictated by the likelikhood of an outcome, both are directly proportional
Actually betting odds are the more reliable poll you can find, the only one where people is 100% sincere because it´s their own money what is at risk. Make a survey and you´ll get some result. After getting a reply ask the ones polled to put their own money on that result and you´ll see how results change drastically.
Polls only show what people would like to happen, bets show what people really think will happen
Betting odds show the level of risk to the bookie. If I ask for odds on Mazepin winning the title, I might get 1000/1 and I put a £1000 on it. Bookie's happy because even though it's a remote chance of me winning, he can afford it. If 1000 people ask for the same bet over the course of a few days, do they all get 1000/1? No they don't, the odds will shorten quite quickly. Why? Is it any more likely that Mazepin will win? No, of course not. But it's an outside chance and that would mean the bookie stands to lose a £1billion (1000 people each putting £1000 on at 1000/1).
Yes, that's an extreme example, but that's how it works. The odds only tell you where other people are betting their money - the shorter the odds, the more money that has been bet on that outcome. The "favourite" at a horse race (or any other event covered by a bookie) is called that not because it is more likely to win, but because it has the most bets put on it.
Odds do not show likelihood of an outcome, they show the risk to the bookie of having to pay winnings.
When the bookie opens his book, he'll publish odds based on where he thinks the risk is i.e. what he thinks is the most likely outcome. But from that point on, the odds move to ensure the bookie doesn't pay out more than he takes in.
Not anymore, Bookies' odds track the exchange. Odds are below the exchange and as the exchange has just over a 100% overround therefore the bookies will always have a larger overround.
Some bookies will reduce their own liabilities on the exchange.
Of course, I agree with all that Just_a_Fan, but that´s the reason odds are much more reliable than polls, no representative number of people will put their money on something unlikely to happen, not even for their favourites. You´re arguing if X number of people ask for same bet it will get shorter with no reason. Correct. But that´s an unreal scenario, in real world people will only ask for a bet if it´s possible, nobody enjoy wasting his own money!
Obviously there will always be a number of people doing stupid odds, but they´re a minority doing small bets, and that do not shorten the odds. If they´re not a minority and affect the odds, then you can be sure you´re missing something (a possible injury leaked by some journalist for example) wich is realistically increasing the odds
Contrary to polls odds force people to be sure about what they´re doing because it´s their own money what is at risk, and I can´t think of a better way to be sure someone is sincere. Also, polls are always extremelly manipulated by the ones doing it, they´re just a representation of popullation as they can´t ask every single person affected, so they ask just a sample and extrapolate the results, but that sample will change drastically depending on the place you do it and the way you ask it. Odds on the other hand are real data collected from all the odds, so you get the real picture instead of an extrapolation wich can be easily manipulated
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
RedBull is protesting the Silverstone penalty for Hamilton,
but i'm pretty sure that nothing will come from it. To be very honest, i think it's distasteful from RBR, no matter what anybody's opinion on the matter is.
However, the truth is that it seems that Verstappen will not 'learn' from this and be more cautious - for example, Hamilton in the end was forced to learn to be more cautious after losing out to Rosberg, and being more 'calculated' (cautious) is something that personally I believe already was something Hamilton should have learned back in his Mclaren days when repetitively bumping into Massa - no matter who's to blame. Hamilton surely knows that luck is part of the game, and being where you need to be in case things come your way. Hell, his 2008 title is down to being able to get Trulli in the final corners. In that sense, Massa was the one who was unlucky. Luck is something you generally can't control - but it is up to you to throw away things.
And Hamilton had lost significant points and possibilities from how he handled both Massa and Rosberg later on.
Why i'm mentioning this is because Max could - should - take lessons from that, if he is wise. The truth of the matter is, regardless of who's to blame - contact was made between Massa and Hamilton. Contact was made between Hamilton and Rosberg. And it BOTH cost them points. No matter who is to blame.
So if Max is smart, he needs to realise that contact can always be made if you go for the knife's edge, regardless of who is to blame. Max already got unlucky in Baku. He however got lucky also that Hamilton went straight on. Had that not happened, then Hamilton would have been in the lead right now. So the 'luck' element has already been played.
Now it's down to yourself. I don't care if Hamilton's to blame in this instance, lets' say he 100% is. there was contact, and it ALWAYS takes two to tango.
Yes, even if Verstappen had the right to that corner, the undeniable truth is there was contact. And the truth is too, that Verstappen did NOT make - sufficient - effort to avoid contact.
Again, even if there is zero blame for verstappen - the truth is, IF verstappen - despite split second moments - decided to play it safe, knowing he is in the lead no matter what happens, then verstappen would simply have lifted trottle, went a bit wider, and it's likely Hamilton would have passed and got P1.
'Worst case' scenario would be Hamilton P1, Verstappen P2. Even though it's extremely likely that Verstappen would have simply followed Hamilton's slipstream, kept within 1 second to get DRS in lap 2, and then just breeze past and win.
Perhaps Max could even have benefitted from a penalty to Hamilton for - theoretically - not leaving enough space. Who knows. Now, the net result was 0 points.
It's this kind of 'insight' and 'wisdom' that could win you the WDC, or lose it.
Now from what i'm reading - thats all we got untill friday and the press conferences - Max is in a 'fighter mode', and RBR worse. They're feeding fuel to the flame.
What should be done is to calm him down, be honourable and fight it out on the track, and be wise.
Hungary will be close between them i'm sure, and if Hamilton wins, they'll be on par on points (depending on who gets a fastest lap during the race) for the WDC.
If they tangle again, things can become real ugly, and with Spa and Zandvoort ahead, two tracks where Max will want to be beast, things can get much uglier.
I am absolutely sure, 100% positive, that just like it's 'in benefit' for Hamilton - being a british driver - to win @ Silverstone, and as such it's not unlikely that decisions
were weighed out to give Lewis a chance to win big with big crowd there,
i'm 100% sure that FIA will very much recognise the profits and benefits from Max winning @ Zandvoort and probably Spa too.
In other words, IF an incident occurs, Max will be 'penalized less'.
This could be thrown completely out of the window by pissing off FIA by b/tching about the penalty @ silverstone, and perhaps even going for some wild acts in hungary.
And yes, all that would definately benefit Norris. Becoming WDC is out of the question unless both Max and Lewis will get punishments, perhaps DSQ.
But i don't think that will happen.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
