Great moments in gambling history
For the record: I’m a firm believer in the right of every man to gamble on anything he sees fit for whatever stakes he wishes. Gambling is both fun and profitable, if you know what you’re doing.
But if you don’t know what you’re doing, it can be disastrous. Consider my friend who, when last in Vegas, placed two bets on Tiger Woods (pre-injury, of course). The first bet was that Tiger would win exactly three majors. The second was that Tiger would win the grand slam. My friend thought he was getting 15-1 odds on the first bet, and 20-1 odds on the second bet. Fair enough, I guess, though it feels like kind of a sucker bet.
Of course, I was right: it was a sucker bet. But not for the reasons I thought. When I examined his slips, I found out that he was getting 4-1 odds on the “exactly three majors” bet, and only 3-1 on the “all four” bet. That’s right: He was getting lower odds on Tiger Woods completing the modern grand slam, a feat that has never occurred.
Needless to say, I had a great deal of fun at his expense. But I’m curious: why would the odds on exactly three slams be better than all four? That doesn’t seem to make a lick of sense. Any expert gamblers out there? My colleague JVL thinks it’s a failure of the marketplace, but I don’t think this can be chalked up to capitalism. Perhaps the book at the Rio spit out the wrong numbers on his ticket. Any ideas?
Who We Are
How We Roll
- @TAC
- AmSpecBlog
- Andrew Sullivan
- Culture11
- Daniel Larison
- Democracy in America
- Ezra Klein
- John Schwenkler
- Julian Sanchez
- Kerry Howley
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- Postmodern Conservative
- Ross Douthat
- The American Scene
- The Confabulum
- The Debatable Land
- The Plank
- The Washington Realist
- Will Wilkinson
4 Comments - add your own
Joe — June 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The idea of betting on a player winning golf’s Grand Slam is a draw unto itself. It’s the satisfaction of saying, hey, I called that, which moves beyond the realm of either markets or rational betting thought.
Consider the Giant fans who last August deemed the blue clad heroes worthy of a C-note wager to win the Super Bowl. Surely few of them looked at the team and declared that without top rusher from 2006, the Giants were the team to beat. Yet they bet. For loyalty, for pride, for the hell of it. I can’t say which. But I would say the inclination of golf fans is to bet on the least probable because it is historic and carries a psychic reward who monetary value is immeasurable. Perhaps these are the purchases Mastercard has been advocating? Winning at Augusta: $1.35 million.
Winning the US Open: $1.26 million
Winning the British Open: £720,000
Winning the PGA: $1.26 million
Actually betting that Tiger would do it the year he finally does it: Priceless
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I mean, that’s fair enough, but is it really enough to induce someone to only get 3:1 odds on predicting an event that has, literally, never happened before? It kind of blows my mind that anyone would take that action. Needless to say, the original friend (the one who placed the bet), claimed to be hammered when he took the action. I don’t blame him.
Joe — June 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’ll say yes. But, I would also expect that a good deal of the action is of the alcohol induced variety. Such as what your aforementioned friend described.
FYI, JVL sent me this way shortly after you got started. I appreciate the quality of the writing and the sense of humor. Just in case you want demographics and referral info on one of your readers.
All the best,
Joe
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I’ll have to buy JVL a case of Honest Tea for sending so much traffic my way…