It's flag odds, but you'll find the ladder that it illustrates is practically identical to the top 8 odds or number of wins odds or whatever other metric they have.

They have the line at 5.5 (17th) which seems far too low for me - although after yesterday's training sesh I am a little more understanding. Old dee is right - if these oddsmakers are genuinely not rating us, it is a very bad sign.

The fact we are at longest odds of any side to win in round one, however, is genuinely staggering. I recently watched the replay of our MCG game against them in 2014 - we were right in that up until about 7-8 minutes to go when the protected species that is Ablett got quite possibly the softest free kick I have ever seen, when it was alleged that Jordie blocked him from a ball-up inside 50. Nathan Jones could play 10,000 games and he wouldn't get a free like that. Of course the bald pr-ck went back and slotted it and that was us done. Another outcome decided by inept umpiring. Even so the margin was just 8 points in the end, after Dunny torped one from a kick-out, to be hanger-grabbed by Howe in the centre, who kicked long to Dawes inside 50, who slotted one after the siren. I think our best22 has clearly improved on paper vs that match, and Ablett himself will be missing, or at least underdone.

I think I might plonk something on that prior to the NAB cup, in case we happen to look decent and those odds shrink to nothing

Edited January 27, 201510 yr by Curry & Beer

C and B if you look at the MFC from the outside we have added one known good player a number of might be's that in 2014 were either not in the AFL or were average at best players looking for a second chance.Then add some kids who cannot be expected to be world beaters in 2015.

This leaves the team looking for improvement from the existing list to make significant gains.

IMO that explains the Price and the pessimism by outside pundits.

I might add I don't think they are too far off the mark.

Moderate improvement is what I see

It's flag odds, but you'll find the ladder that it illustrates is practically identical to the top 8 odds or number of wins odds or whatever other metric they have.

They have the line at 5.5 (17th) which seems far too low for me - although after yesterday's training sesh I am a little more understanding. Old dee is right - if these oddsmakers are genuinely not rating us, it is a very bad sign.

The fact we are at longest odds of any side to win in round one, however, is genuinely staggering. I recently watched the replay of our MCG game against them in 2014 - we were right in that up until about 7-8 minutes to go when the protected species that is Ablett got quite possibly the softest free kick I have ever seen, when it was alleged that Jordie blocked him from a ball-up inside 50. Nathan Jones could play 10,000 games and he wouldn't get a free like that. Of course the bald pr-ck went back and slotted it and that was us done. Another outcome decided by inept umpiring. Even so the margin was just 8 points in the end, after Dunny torped one from a kick-out, to be hanger-grabbed by Howe in the centre, who kicked long to Dawes inside 50, who slotted one after the siren. I think our best22 has clearly improved on paper vs that match, and Ablett himself will be missing, or at least underdone.

I think I might plonk something on that prior to the NAB cup, in case we happen to look decent and those odds shrink to nothing

I am not the least bit worried about betting odds. These follow the money put down by the public, not any analysis of the football. If they show anything at all, it is what the average mug punter thinks, and unsurprisingly they don't back us very much ...

I am not the least bit worried about betting odds. These follow the money put down by the public, not any analysis of the football. If they show anything at all, it is what the average mug punter thinks, and unsurprisingly they don't back us very much ...

Sorry R and B I don't agree with that comment.

The bookies set the odds to entice the punters to putting up their money.

They know Hawthorn will not lose many so put up short odds

They look at the MFC and judge they won't win many so put up good odds to entice bets and keep the money.

They seldom lose overall because they understand the ability of the horse or team they are taken bets on.

Now do I think they are underestimating the MFC in 2015?

I hope so I think we will be better than they suggest but I do not see us as world beaters in 2015.

Sorry R and B I don't agree with that comment.

The bookies set the odds to entice the punters to putting up their money.

They know Hawthorn will not lose many so put up short odds

They look at the MFC and judge they won't win many so put up good odds to entice bets and keep the money.

They seldom lose overall because they understand the ability of the horse or team they are taken bets on.

Now do I think they are underestimating the MFC in 2015?

I hope so I think we will be better than they suggest but I do not see us as world beaters in 2015.

agreed

they are very well-versed in the subject matter, it is their entire job to be so. If they were 'ignorant' of where our club is at and therefore set Melbourne's win-loss line too low then they would lose money. If they ever do badly misjudge something, the immediate interest from the betters simply points out their mistake and they quickly adjust.. that's why the odds are pretty much always a great indicator of what is going to happen, and that's why the house wins no matter what. If we happen to go OK and make finals for example, it doesn't matter cos they just clean up off whoever bet on Richmond (or whoever it is) that we would be hypothetically edging out of the 8.. so it is in the interest to entice us (as Old points us) to back the dees as the long shot that they are

The great thing about bookies' odds is that whilst they might be reasonably good indicators of how things are going to work out, they're not infallible. A few years ago, I entered a tipping competition that had 29 participants and I decided to base my selections purely on the betting odds published in the newspapers. I finished in equal 11th spot in the competition with two others which means there were 10 tipsters out there who beat the bookies and, in turn, the bookies finished in front by virtue of them finishing ahead of 16 tipsters and behind only 10. That's obviously a small sample but my guess is that this is how it works.

The bookies odds are framed on a consideration of a number of issues and past form is one of the foremost. I suppose that's why professional punters spend a lot of time studying form guides which for the most part are about past performances. I think therefore that given how we've performed in the last couple of seasons we belong on the line of 17/18 for the flag and where we are vis a vis Gold Coast for round 1, the rationale being that they've beaten us at the last three starts and the expectation is that they will have Ablett back. Our odds will firm if it becomes obvious from our form in preseason matches that our starting team will contain half a dozen new faces and our style of play is markedly better than what we displayed in our last 10 games which were all losses.

Sorry R and B I don't agree with that comment.

The bookies set the odds to entice the punters to putting up their money.

They know Hawthorn will not lose many so put up short odds

They look at the MFC and judge they won't win many so put up good odds to entice bets and keep the money.

They seldom lose overall because they understand the ability of the horse or team they are taken bets on.

Now do I think they are underestimating the MFC in 2015?

I hope so I think we will be better than they suggest but I do not see us as world beaters in 2015.

Feel free to disagree OD. I am not in the betting industry, but I think they follow where the money is going more than football analysis. If a lot of money is on Hawthorn to win the flag, they stand to lose a lot if the odds are too high. If hardly one punts on the Dees to salute, then they have high odds to entice a few mugs. They do have to make some initial estimation, but I don't think that is a big part of it.

agreed

they are very well-versed in the subject matter, it is their entire job to be so. If they were 'ignorant' of where our club is at and therefore set Melbourne's win-loss line too low then they would lose money. If they ever do badly misjudge something, the immediate interest from the betters simply points out their mistake and they quickly adjust.. that's why the odds are pretty much always a great indicator of what is going to happen, and that's why the house wins no matter what. If we happen to go OK and make finals for example, it doesn't matter cos they just clean up off whoever bet on Richmond (or whoever it is) that we would be hypothetically edging out of the 8.. so it is in the interest to entice us (as Old points us) to back the dees as the long shot that they are

That is my point, C&B. I don't think they spend ages agonising over whether Richmond will finish 9th, but if there is a growing amount of money bet on it, the odds will shorten. The odds reflect where the money has been bet more than anything else.

251.00!?!?!?!

How are we going in the current odds now that we've opened our account with a win in the first game of the season?

How are we going in the current odds now that we've opened our account with a win in the first game of the season?

I would have thought that is like asking if your odds of reaching the summit of Mt Everest have improved because you just completed a successful ascent of Mt Dandenong.

I would have thought that is like asking if your odds of reaching the summit of Mt Everest have improved because you just completed a successful ascent of Mt Dandenong.

True but it would still be interesting to know to what extent the public perception of the team has changed with this one performance.