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?