I think people underestimate the popularity of Flavia as well. Add to that the Olympic momentum, the bare torso, the seemingly louder applause in the audience for the pairing, the fact that he was the only guy left and that the two girls left were somewhat similar in personality and style. It was all in his favour. Very similar to the position Tom Chambers had going into the final.
He's improved so much on the performance side in the last few weeks that the odds could change dramatically. Especially as people who would've been voting for say Lisa or any others who've gone out recently would switch their votes to someone else maybe Louis was 2nd choice for them. And bookies have picked up that he'd become the favourite with the voting public.
Sorry to be pedantic, but the bookies odds are not about the popularity of the contestant, or even how certain they are he/she is going to win. For the odds to change so dramatically, actual money would have to be wagered. That's what I found so strange.
They (the bookies) would have shortened the odds a bit just to discourage bets on Louis, but that still wouldn't explain them bringing the odds right in to 1/10. It's really more of an oddity in the betting than anything to do with the result and the way people voted.
Sorry to be pedantic, but the bookies odds are not about the popularity of the contestant, or even how certain they are he/she is going to win. For the odds to change so dramatically, actual money would have to be wagered. That's what I found so strange.
They (the bookies) would have shortened the odds a bit just to discourage bets on Louis, but that still wouldn't explain them bringing the odds right in to 1/10. It's really more of an oddity in the betting than anything to do with the result and the way people voted.
Their "inside knowledge" could well just be this forum and twitter.
Bookies normally stop accepting bets for the eliminated celeb on the Sat. night, a couple of years ago we worked out that that was based on the spoiler thread on here. This was because one week someone trolled the wrong result and then shortly after bets were no longer possible for them. Later on when the spoiler was sorted, the betting possibilities changed accordingly.
I'm sure it's just his popularity here (and twitter, etc.) combined with lots of bets being placed that shortened his odds. No conspiracy.
Their "inside knowledge" could well just be this forum and twitter.
Bookies normally stop accepting bets for the eliminated celeb on the Sat. night, a couple of years ago we worked out that that was based on the spoiler thread on here. This was because one week someone trolled the wrong result and then shortly after bets were no longer possible for them. Later on when the spoiler was sorted, the betting possibilities changed accordingly.
I'm sure it's just his popularity here (and twitter, etc.) combined with lots of bets being placed that shortened his odds. No conspiracy.
I would have thought they needed to stop taking bets on the elimination as soon as the result was announced, would they really have relied on our spoiler ?
I was watching the odds tonight, and they moved dramatically as soon as Dani was eliminated. All week, and through the first programme, the odds between Louis and Kimberley had been fairly close. Suddenly the odds on Louis moved from 4/7 to 2/13...that's a massive jump as anyone who knows about betting will tell you. In a matter of minutes they were 1/10, some were even going 1/20..practically unbackable.
I don't think there was necessarily any conspiracy. But I do think it was probably a sting. A syndicate may have waited until the last minute and then piled in heavily to make a killing.
If so, good luck to them. The bookies have had enough of my money in the past.
I would have thought they needed to stop taking bets on the elimination as soon as the result was announced, would they really have relied on our spoiler ?I was watching the odds tonight, and they moved dramatically as soon as Dani was eliminated. All week, and through the first programme, the odds between Louis and Kimberley had been fairly close. Suddenly the odds on Louis moved from 4/7 to 2/13...that's a massive jump as anyone who knows about betting will tell you. In a matter of minutes they were 1/10, some were even going 1/20..practically unbackable.
I don't think there was necessarily any conspiracy. But I do think it was probably a sting. A syndicate may have waited until the last minute and then piled in heavily to make a killing.
If so, good luck to them. The bookies have had enough of my money in the past.
This was on Saturday night, so the night before the official result.
I remember we were all surprised too. As far as I remember after the "troll result" was posted other FMs were saying that from their posting history they were not trustworthy and then someone else said that the "troll result" must be true because the bookies have just stopped taking bets on the couple. Once the correct spoiler came out the only logical conclusion was that the bookies were getting their info from here (how else would they have the same wrong name). I'm sure they are more careful now though.
Never bet on anything that can be manipulated or where there is a possibility of insider knowledge.
Unless of course it is you that it is the person with the power to manipulate or has the insider knowledge.
Of course there is insider knowledge driven betting on SCD. So what? Who cares? Does it matter? Other than to the betting industry parasites.
Who is going to pay for any investigation? The betting firm parasites? No chance. They are just parasites. Do they fund the BBC's show? No.
They don't need to fund an investigation ino SCD. They are only interested in the betting patterns, it could be Strictly or the 2.30 at Plumpton, it's all the same to them.
If they smell a rat, they will look into it. It happens fairly frequently. Where the bets come from, the amounts, who placed them, the timing etc. Of course it depends on how much money is involved.
I can't quote actual statistics but I tend to keep an eye on betting odds for SCD throughout the final show most years. And as far as I can recall, it's always been roughly like this. Odds shorten drastically on the eventual winner and drift for the others. I remember being rather comforted by watching Kara's odds shorten and those of her fellow finalists drift during the show. Maybe the drift hasn't looked so drastic in previous years but the trend's been the same. Dani's odds went right out during the final despite starting at a shorter price than Denise and never having been in the bottom two.
Do the bookies have insider knowledge on SCD? I don't know but they've got the result right every year I've kept an eye on them and that's several years.
I havn't got a problem with him winning because it was obvious that he must have been popular because he had never been in the bottom two. But I did honestly think that Kimberley would just edge it with her GA fanbase and because she has been so popular on here. I have not seen that many fans for him and wondered who did actually like him! Obviously the young girls?
and young girls don't like GA? I know in my 40s I wouldn't even buy their singles..what's with this age and sex thing?
Louis has come in from 4/6 to 1/10 in the duration of the show.
That looks strange to me. I'm not suggesting there has been anything amiss with the voting, but it does suggest a leak.
Ordinary punters don't bet at prices beyond 1/2 on generally, putting £500 down to win £50 suggests enormous confidence..or inside knowledge.
I havn't got a problem with him winning because it was obvious that he must have been popular because he had never been in the bottom two. But I did honestly think that Kimberley would just edge it with her GA fanbase and because she has been so popular on here. I have not seen that many fans for him and wondered who did actually like him! Obviously the young girls?
Good job she didn't win because of her Girls Aloud fanbase isn't it?
Won't bother dignifying the BIB with a response. :rolleyes:
Louis has come in from 4/6 to 1/10 in the duration of the show.
That looks strange to me. I'm not suggesting there has been anything amiss with the voting, but it does suggest a leak.
Ordinary punters don't bet at prices beyond 1/2 on generally, putting £500 down to win £50 suggests enormous confidence..or inside knowledge.
'Inside knowledge' does this mean there is a Strictly Mole Richmond:)
Definite inside knowledge, there's no way he'd drift to 1/10 on his performances alone.
Odds change as more people vote on one person. You don't have to have inside knowledge - you don't even need to have really watched the show - to know Louis would win. I put some cash down on it and i had no inside knowledge.
It's what happens. Last summer David Moyes became favourite to become the new Spurs manager purely because of the money that was being put on him - when in reality it was never, ever going to happen.
You really are clueless to what the thread is all about aren't you? It's nothing to do with who won, it's just about the betting.
Just a little tip..read the previous posts before coming on and making a fool of youself.
Comments
Sorry to be pedantic, but the bookies odds are not about the popularity of the contestant, or even how certain they are he/she is going to win. For the odds to change so dramatically, actual money would have to be wagered. That's what I found so strange.
They (the bookies) would have shortened the odds a bit just to discourage bets on Louis, but that still wouldn't explain them bringing the odds right in to 1/10. It's really more of an oddity in the betting than anything to do with the result and the way people voted.
Their "inside knowledge" could well just be this forum and twitter.
Bookies normally stop accepting bets for the eliminated celeb on the Sat. night, a couple of years ago we worked out that that was based on the spoiler thread on here. This was because one week someone trolled the wrong result and then shortly after bets were no longer possible for them. Later on when the spoiler was sorted, the betting possibilities changed accordingly.
I'm sure it's just his popularity here (and twitter, etc.) combined with lots of bets being placed that shortened his odds. No conspiracy.
Unless of course it is you that it is the person with the power to manipulate or has the insider knowledge.
Of course there is insider knowledge driven betting on SCD. So what? Who cares? Does it matter? Other than to the betting industry parasites.
Who is going to pay for any investigation? The betting firm parasites? No chance. They are just parasites. Do they fund the BBC's show? No.
I would have thought they needed to stop taking bets on the elimination as soon as the result was announced, would they really have relied on our spoiler ?
I was watching the odds tonight, and they moved dramatically as soon as Dani was eliminated. All week, and through the first programme, the odds between Louis and Kimberley had been fairly close. Suddenly the odds on Louis moved from 4/7 to 2/13...that's a massive jump as anyone who knows about betting will tell you. In a matter of minutes they were 1/10, some were even going 1/20..practically unbackable.
I don't think there was necessarily any conspiracy. But I do think it was probably a sting. A syndicate may have waited until the last minute and then piled in heavily to make a killing.
If so, good luck to them. The bookies have had enough of my money in the past.
This was on Saturday night, so the night before the official result.
I remember we were all surprised too. As far as I remember after the "troll result" was posted other FMs were saying that from their posting history they were not trustworthy and then someone else said that the "troll result" must be true because the bookies have just stopped taking bets on the couple. Once the correct spoiler came out the only logical conclusion was that the bookies were getting their info from here (how else would they have the same wrong name). I'm sure they are more careful now though.
They don't need to fund an investigation ino SCD. They are only interested in the betting patterns, it could be Strictly or the 2.30 at Plumpton, it's all the same to them.
If they smell a rat, they will look into it. It happens fairly frequently. Where the bets come from, the amounts, who placed them, the timing etc. Of course it depends on how much money is involved.
Do the bookies have insider knowledge on SCD? I don't know but they've got the result right every year I've kept an eye on them and that's several years.
and young girls don't like GA? I know in my 40s I wouldn't even buy their singles..what's with this age and sex thing?
What a sore loser!
Good job she didn't win because of her Girls Aloud fanbase isn't it?
Won't bother dignifying the BIB with a response. :rolleyes:
'Inside knowledge' does this mean there is a Strictly Mole Richmond:)
Odds change as more people vote on one person. You don't have to have inside knowledge - you don't even need to have really watched the show - to know Louis would win. I put some cash down on it and i had no inside knowledge.
It's what happens. Last summer David Moyes became favourite to become the new Spurs manager purely because of the money that was being put on him - when in reality it was never, ever going to happen.
You really are clueless to what the thread is all about aren't you? It's nothing to do with who won, it's just about the betting.
Just a little tip..read the previous posts before coming on and making a fool of youself.