Almost impossible to come to any definite conclusions from the little we've seen and heard so far. But I always like to have one modest early bet on a contestant who's odds appear generous.
This year I've gone for Kellie Bright at 20/1. I have my doubts about her going all the way, but those odds look good value from the little I've seen and read about her. Each way you get 4/1 for a place (getting in the first three) so I've gone for that.

I've ended up with a few on different sweepstakes but my main flutter is on Jay and Kellie, I increased my bet on her after the launch show 20/1 is very good odds.

Yes, I'm going to wait until we've seen them all perform before making another bet. Of the more fancied contestants, I think Jay wil be popular, same with Helen and Georgia. Not so sure about Jamelia and Kirsty, I think they will spit opinion. Carol should get a decent run, one of the most likeable and popular women on tv. I can see her being saved by the public vote quite often.
Of course, Peter Andre is the one they all have to beat. But he's another kind of marmite character and I wouldn't be betting at his odds of 5/2.

I've been quite lucky and picked the winner the last 3 years.

I made my bets as soon as the celebs were officially named and put £10 on Helen (7/1) and I also had a free £10 bet which I put on Anita who was 33/1 at the time! Thought she was worth a tenner at that price

I bet the psofa psychologisers will be psychoanalysing ever single utterance, and pinging their empty heroes wrappers in protest at their plasmas at meaningful intervals.

Yes, Helen is still avaiable at 6/1, but Anita is now in at 20/1.

Katie is as short as 12/1 with some bookies, so must have attracted a few bets. I can't see her getting far myself.

Coral has her at 16/1, which might be worth a small punt; Anton has a built in voting block regardless, and if Katie is even half as good as she could be they might be a tad difficult to shift. Plus imagine how the Anton fanatics would power vote if they heard that nice young man made the final after all this time...

Had a little punt on Georgia a week or so ago, got her at 7/1

Indeed, his back odds are too short but considering he hasn't danced yet he would be a good bet to lay at those odds. In fact, his lay odds are around 3.8/3.85 which is between 11/4 and 3/1 but that is still too short considering not a single step has been danced in anger yet.

I am a professional sports trader and have not played on Strictly since the BBC changed the rules in season 6 and allowed all three semi-finalists through to the final. Tom Chambers was set up (by the judges) to be eliminated but the BBC thwarted that; since then I have stayed clear as I am not going to get involved in something where the rules can be changed without warning.

Prior to this, laying the favourite before he or she had danced was the value bet as anyone backing was not betting on dancing prowess or form, but on speculation. Even if he/she proved capable they would usually have at least one bad week which would enable you to get out of the lay if you wished to.

Of course, for a little bit of fun there is nothing wrong with a small bet or two and I wish the best of British to those that are having a go. Best prices I can see on those already mentioned are 23/1 on Anita, 27/1 on Kellie, 8.5/1 on Georgia, 15/1 on Katie and 6.5/1 on Helen. If you have beaten those odds then you have done well as against what is currently available, but of course these will fluctuate once the dancing begins in earnest.

Good luck everyone; enjoy the series and your flutters!

As far as I am concerned, the one big question is whether the BBC will allow a professional dancer to win the title twice? Aside from the betting point of view, it makes SCD that much less exciting when you can presume that five celebs this year cannot win the competition due to being partnered with a pro who has already won. Carol and Iwan might not be expected to win anyway, but Jay, Kirsty and Helen all could have been considered possible winners. Yes, it might just be how the cards have fallen, but out of the last five finals, (fifteen couples), only one, Natalie and Artem have been a couple with an already winning pro, and their chances could have been considered to have been dashed once the celebs had been announced when the Daily MIrror ( I believe) headlined Natalie as a ringer the very next day. Only one such couple out of fifteen finalists does seem to smack of a bit of good planning going on, rather than just luck.

On the other hand, this should make backing the winner that much easier. Fifteen-runner races are much easier to predict when five can be ruled out to begin with. However, it would only take one pro to win it twice to open all the possibilities.

IIRC there was a recent documentary on BBC One about betting shops, and the people working out the odds do so entirely based on what they've seen on the launch show.

There was, yes; but that documentary showed you what the bookmakers wanted you to see rather than the reality of how they manage their operation.

That is a very interesting question. It has always struck me has odd that, even allowing for changes in personnel, no professional dancer has won twice over the twelve series of Strictly.

It is quite remarkable when you compare this with the US series Dancing With The Stars where just five professionals won all eleven series from 2 - 12 (Cheryl Burke, Julianne Hough, Derek Hough, Mark Ballas and Kym Johnson; and Derek Hough has since won another two series). Indeed, at one point the Houghs/Ballas combination had won seven out of eight series, though IMHO this is due in no small part to the Hough siblings being far and away the finest dancers and choreographers across both Strictly and DWTS.

I don't usually bet but if I did I'd choose Helen. I think she's got the best chance if you factor in age, training time, likeability and (probably) talent. The only draw back is she's paired with a winning pro.

I was thinking about the number of times a former champion has been given another potential winner, and before this series:
- Brendan was arguably given another potential winner in Lisa before she turned out to be so terminally unpopular with the public, and definitely had another potential winner with Sophie
- Darren similarly had Emma two series after winning with Jill
- Lilia was runner-up the year after winning
- Artem had Natalie; the best celebrity ever seen on the show, although in hindsight probably always destined for a runner-up position

And this year Aliona and Aljaz both have people who should, on paper, get far. Although I didn't realise until I checked that Derek Hough had won DWTS five times out of twenty series, nobody else has done so more than twice and there's been quite a few occasions on Strictly where that could have happened.

Indeed, and had it not been for the BBC's unannounced rule change then the final would have been between Lisa and Rachel and who knows what might have happened?


It is an even better record than that as he only participated from series 5 onwards and did not dance in series 12

His form figures read 4 6 1 5 4 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 across his fifteen completed series. Thirteen top four finishes out of fifteen is truly staggering.

Think that Rachel would have won in that case. Rachel & Vincent were the more likeable couple out of those two and don't forget that many people (or perhaps it was just the majority of this forum ) hold Lisa responsible for the elimination of Austin in the quarterfinal.

And disagree with you about the judges fixing this in that semi, as their "fix" resulted in Tom getting into the final (as the BBC were forced to change the rules). Len actually caused me to miss most of series 7 and the whole of series 8 (due to his scoring in that semi amongst others).

It did, but I do not think they realised that would happen. Who could, as the rule change was so unexpected?

The judges gave the same score to Lisa and Rachel over the two dances, meaning that each of them scored 3 points from the judges whilst Tom, being bottom, scored 1 (this scenario cannot be repeated as the scoring was adjusted after this, so Tom would now score 2). This meant that even if Tom came top in the public vote and scored 3 (which he did) to give him a total of 4, either Rachel or Lisa had to come second with the viewers, thus earning 2 points and going through to the final. The lowest scoring dancer in the public vote would dance-off against Tom. Tom had been the weakest dancer on the night and thus, barring a miraculously improved performance or a complete disaster by his opponent, he would be eliminated.

If there is one thing on which the judges have always been unanimous it is in their emphasis of how they perceive Strictly to be first and foremost a dance competition and that the best dancers should contest the final, and I think this was their way of trying to arrange that rather than have the finalists determined by the public vote. Had Rachel and Lisa been first and second with the judges instead of joint first, the public vote for Tom would have put him straight through to the final if the judges' top choice came bottom in the viewers' vote. If the judges' intention was to ensure that the best dancers got through to the final, this was the only way they could guarantee this would occur.

If that is what happened, then as it turns out they couldn't guarantee it thanks to the amendment to the rules.

Of course, I have no evidence whatsoever for this; it is merely a theory and feel free to disagree with it and pull it to bits.

I think the on-the-hoof rule change was mainly because all the way through you are asked 'to vote for your favourite to save them from the dance off' - and with the scores there was no way for Tom to avoid the dance off. I think that was the biggie and what lead to the emergency meeting in Strictly Towers. It was all around the same time as the other phone line difficulties and asking the public to pay to vote for something that could never happen was giving them the twitches (especially when you consider that in the event of a tie, the public vote takes precedence).

Oh yes, I agree, I am sure that was the reason for the rule change and, if the judges were up to what I think they may have been up to, I doubt the implication of their action had dawned on them. As you say Tom could not have been saved from the dance off and, whilst that may have been the judges' intention, perhaps they hadn't appreciated that this meant people were incurring charges for casting votes which were, in effect, useless.

Whilst watching the semi-final I got an inclination as to what I thought the judges were up to. I was ready to trade on the betting market of this event and the second that the scores were announced I hit the submit button on Tom to be the night's eliminee. A few seconds later as others cottoned on to the situation (i.e. that Tom had to be in the dance off) his price plunged and I sat there with a smug smile on my face as I knew I had locked in a guaranteed profit and beaten everyone else to it. After a short while the smile faded as it became clear, long before it was announced, that something else was going to happen; for Tom's price to be the eliminee started to drift out. This meant there had to be something going of which I was unaware. There were obviously some who did know, however, and they were able to use this knowledge to their advantage and take positions in the market. When it was announced that all three contestants were going through to the final, the latent drift on Tom became understandable. Those "insiders" profited. As it turned out, some of the bets were voided because of the rule change so it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It was enough to deter me from playing on such markets in the future, of course.

That really is my dilemma in a nutshell. I too thought Helen the best female betting proposition this year. She's neither too young nor too old to be considered a winner. Mrs C has considered training time which I admit I hadn't even contemplated. There is no particular reason to think she won't be likeable. And, it seems reasonable to think that she might have a bit of talent to bring through, although I have come across a comment of her having 'locked hips' which is presumably a detrimental factor with a view to latin dancing at least. All in all, a good, balanced choice. But she's been paired with a winning pro. This means she has lost before she has begun.

Providing she proves herself capable, I can spend the duration of the series deluding myself that the BBC will break their golden rule, which is not the happiest basis for watching Strictly. I say deluding as I fancy the BBC will keep to their standard of no double winning pro, not realising that with no less than five previous winners in the field, more and more people will put two and two together and come to the conclusion that it is rather strange that no pros win for a second time, and therefore only ten of this year's contestants can actually win. After all, if you can record a results show on Saturday night, and present it as if it were live on Sunday and fool a big percentage of the viewing public over that, I guess you're not going to be troubled with a more complicated stat like winning pros.

When I picked her out on the night of the celebrity announcements, she was 8/1 fourth or fifth favourite, and in my opinion was destined to win, and certainly not be runner-up as a matter of course.

Then the following morning, she was headline news on the front page of IIRC the Daily Mirror, and THEN she was destined not to win from that point. The bookies didn't realise this, making her even money favourite or thereabouts for many weeks. It wasn't until she fell into the bottom two in the semi-final that they reacted to her low popularity vote and she became an 8/1 shot again.

At that time I don't think I had clocked the idea of no double winning pros, so yes, that certainly did for her, but the newspaper article was already out, and then I guess the BBC felt safe in letting Artem partner her knowing that public opinion had already been set against her.

It wouldn't surprise me if the BBC had actually leaked the info to the Daily Mirror just to make sure, but that's me getting carried away with my conspiracy theory. I think the BBC can struggle a bit to guarantee a first time pro winner when several previous winners are in the field - 2006 for instance was a close-run thing. However, they managed to dispatch them with ease last year.

I am now of the opinion that when the celebs meet the pros for the first time, they are not just using dance experts to sort out who will be suited to whom by temperament, height etc, but who of the celebs isn't actually good enough to win, and then foist the past winners on to them. It's not a conclusion that I'm happy with as it means that they have decided that Helen is not good enough to win.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking, but when considering if a pro might be allowed to win for a second time, for some reason I felt that Aljaz might be the one chosen. It is the only hope left for Helen.

I only put a bet on if I can get reasonable odds on someone who looks half reasonable, so this is the first time I've done it in about 3 years. I've gone for Anita because 1. she looks really keen and willing to work hard and 2. there seems to be a history of sexy Russians winning on their first series - Artem, Aljaz.

Got to be worth a tenner at 20/1.

Also think Kellie Bright would be a good punt cos her first steps video looks pretty good, and if we're talking conspiracy/ manipulation, I think the producers want Kevin from Gimsby to win.

Natalie was always destined to be a runner-up at best. They don't vote for the ringers, the ones who start too well or whom they perceive as having previous dance training.

I think the gap between male and female pros in terms of length of tenure before winning is interesting. At time of winning, a victorious male pro has served on average 1.8 series. For female pros it's 4. Four male pros have won in their first series, but no female pro has ever done it (sorry Otlile). Whether this means the public like a female pro who has "paid her dues" (see : the absolute shitfits people had over Natalie in her first series) but don't really care when it's a man, I don't know.