They will set odds at a level they hope to entice people to place a bet. When they have a lot of bets they will keep them low to make sure they don't lose out that much. Also lets say for example Person A had a few large bets on them they would have shorter odds than somebody who has a lot of bets on them for a lesser amount overall.

Also Harry has always had short odds throughout it is very possible he had more money put on him in September than say the first week of December as a random example. Though he would stay with short odds it may not be as indicative that up to date betting is as confident. He is also the safest each way bet so would be interesting to see how they are reflected against out right win.

Bookmaking theory is to arrange liabilities of bets laid in such proportions that whatever the eventuality the bookie will show a profit -- a small profit. However bookies also have heavy overheads and suffer from recession, so if a bookie knew something for sure, e.g. one contestant out of two has been injured, then the greedy buggers will not restrain themselves from breaking rank to lay lopsided bets and benefit from specialist info. There are "safe" bookies and there are those who boldly go out on a limb to lay bets according to their own opinion -- if they know the subject.

Unfortunately for them bookies know horses but not dancing nor the finer points of the Strictly electorate. Come the day of the Final because of tabloid publicity, there will actually be £millions bet, spread thinly nationwide as small fun bets.

What do you mean "his odds will be shorter"?

I don't know a whole lot about this gambling business. Didn't even know until now that the odds depend on how much money has been bet on him.

The more money the bookies would lose on a bet if it came up, the progressively shorter would be the odds.

"Shorter" means the outcome is more considered more likely; "longer" means less likely. So 10 to 1 is "longer" than 5 to 1. If odds are getting longer, they are "drifting".

"Shorter" odds also mean that less money is paid out (by the bookie) to the people who bet that that thing would happen. (10 to 1 and the bookie pays £10 for each £1 bet, plus returning the amount bet. 5 to 1, the bookie pays only £5.)

So ... if a lot of money is going on Harry to win (compared to the amount going on other contestants), the bookie will shorten the odds so that bookie wouldn't have to pay so much on later bets on Harry to win. (Both sides are stuck with the odds that were in force at the time the bet was made.)

In other words, the bookie is reducing how much they will have at risk if Harry were to win.

Remember that if Harry wins, the bookie loses all those bets but wins against everyone who bet that someone else would win.

The aim is to set all of the odds so that the bookie comes out ahead no matter who wins SCD.

If someone (just one individual) places a single, very large bet then that immediately shortens the odds available to him/her and subsequent punters.

A bookie couldn't pay out (wouldn't want to/be able to) pay out 10/1 on a stake of £50,000. Large sums also suggest inside knowledge.

Oooh, thanks guys. Very helpful. And very comprehensive too Veri!

Probably one of the most interesting finals there has been, because it really is impossible to call.

It seems the majority this Jason will go out first - but who knows, he might not.

For me, Harry is my winner; he's the best dancer technically, but being the best doesn't always win votes.

Chelsee is close to Harry in technique, and has bonus of adding personality to her dancing.


Presuming Jason does go out first, then the winner will be down to Aliona and Pasha, which one will present the best showdance?

Bookie prices are bonkers, but this forum does not appear to know its collective mind they way it did in every year past.

Following the semifinal there has not been one dickiebird comment on the departure of nice girl Alex. But not many posts on Harry and Chelsee either.
It has all been about Holly Holly Holly, should she, should't she have made the Final. Postings about Jason were more often than not about how he put Holly out of the competition.

Maybe the Final has lost its focus of attention, the most watched, most controversial celeb.

I think Chelsee will win, but I think it is much harder to call since the producers changed the order of the dances in the final last year .

At the moment we know Harry and Aliona are dancing the American Smooth (not the Paso Doble) as their new dance and a rock and roll show dance. We also know that Chelsee's new dance is the Rumba (not the Viennese Waltz) and think Jason's new dance is the Salsa (not the Waltz). I don't know if the pros were allowed to choose their new dance or not, but I'd say Harry and Aliona are starting from a position of strength.

So I think that this year more than ever, I think the show dances will make the difference about who the final two will be. remember as well that more people vote in the final than at any other time (this fact is usually announced by Bruce at some point in the show).

I think DS will be right again about the winner.

On this point, this is not entirely correct - some bookmakers have traders who are very experienced at reality TV, and the vagaries of the voting public. However, it is fair to say that the majority of bets on Strictly are generally of the small, fun kind. There were a lot of costly lessons learnt in the first couple of series of Big Brother, which means that limits available to bet on shows such as this are generally far lower than on a horse race, and the chances of any one individual getting £50k on any one outcome are slim.

(Anecdotally) towards the end of most series of vote-in reality shows I do a poll on the old blog where people indicate in their vote both who they want to win, and who they think will win. One thing I've found, across every show, is that fans of a contestant always rate the chance of their chosen one winning lower than fans of their rivals do. Even in walk-over series.

No it won't necessarily - sounds like once again the showdances could be before third place is announced, with the new dance coming afterwards to be the clincher. And there Harry has AS, Chelsee Rumba.

I disagree. Her arms are beautiful and the judges comment on that but her footwork is not always tidy. She can perform and that is one of her great strengths. Harry is unbeatable in barroom. His technique is brilliant and he leads Aliona confidently. His samba and salsa were his weakest dances but lhe produced a strong rumba which should have scored higher but there was an error. His AT was full of emotion. His charleston was brilliant. Harry's ability to perform has improved so much in the final stages of the competition. If they choose their dances wisely and if Aliona produces a great show dance and if Harry comes out and sells it he will be hard to beat.

Not that much difference between them markswise.
Male celebs usually start with low marks in week 1 and improve. Top women celebs generally start from marks over 30 and stay there.

Harry:

28 cha cha,
33 jive,
27 foxtrot,
35 waltz,
34 tango,
33 samba,
37 AT,
34 Salsa,
39 quickstep,
36 rumba,
39 charlston,
39 VW
421 total.

Chelsee:

27 waltz,
29 salsa,
30 cha cha,
36 quickstep,
32 tango,
36 charlston,
36 foxtrot,
35 salsa,
35 AT,
39 jive,
36 AS,
40 paso
417 total.

Gamblers rarely win, bookies usually do