Michelle Wie to win a men's major--wanna bet?

The odds are so low because they are almost certainly gaurding against any potential rule changes that would allow women to tee off from an alternate set of tees(similar to women's tees). This is by the way a suckers bet, I know of no Wie fans who honestly belive she will ever win a men's major. I think you and Michelle should first concentrate on winning a Women's major, or better yet a women's tournament period. These blogs/articles suggesting that a 16-year-old girl with one amateur title to her credit, no LPGA wins and no cuts made at any men's competive golf level(PGA, Asian, Nationwide...)will finish in the top ten of a men's tournament, THIS YEAR and eventually win a MAJOR are laughable. The fact that you are looking at what a british oddsmaker, whose primary focus is horesracing is even more comical. Maybe they didn't recieve coverage of this years SONY OPEN accross the pond.

Jackson, your knowledge of British bookmakers is obviously tiny.
British bookmakers have a huge interest in golf, and have tonnes of bets available on each tournament.
There are odds available while the tournament is running, as well as all sorts of handicap betting, group betting, Tiger special, European specials.

So, whether they are right or wrong in this case, the British bookmakers are very keen on golf.

To address the two bets available

* 16/1 on Michelle finishing in the top 10. Is that bet for a major or just in any pga tournament? If it is in a major, it is a sucket bet, im my opinion.
If it is in any pga event, it is very unlikely to happen which means that 16/1 would be about right.

Jennifer, at those odds the wagers are nothing but "sucker bets." Since there is no possible way to come up with anything like a fair line on those propositions, Grouse has come up with ridiculous odds like 2-1 on MW winning a major on the men's tour and 16-1 to finish top ten in a PGA event this year. He could lay odds of 100-1 on either bet and still be quoting way under the true odds. Notice that a player on those bets doesn't have the option of LAYING those skimpy odds.If Gilchrist or anyone else really wants to bet on those props I'll give them TWICE those odds. I'm serious.

As regards the major bet:

I don't believe she will ever win a mens major, and I don't believe she won't do it either. She has the potential to do well, but so do many other people.
In my opinion it would be foolhardy to predict that any young player would be a major winner. I wouldn't even back Sean O'Hair for this, despite him having won on the pga.

************************
Jackson said:
I think you and Michelle should first concentrate on winning a Women's major, or better yet a women's tournament period.
************************

She is concentrating on winning womens majors, so much so in fact that she is entering all 4 of them. Also she is entering the maximum number of lpga tournaments that she can, so she is trying to win on the lpga, but she can only play 8 lpga tournaments, so why not try mens as well.


*****************************
Jackson said:
These blogs/articles suggesting that a 16-year-old girl with one amateur title to her credit, no LPGA wins and no cuts made at any men's competive golf level(PGA, Asian, Nationwide...)will finish in the top ten of a men's tournament, THIS YEAR and eventually win a MAJOR are laughable.
*****************************

The odds do not suggest that she would have a top 10 finish. The odds are 16/1 which suggest that it is highly unlikely to happen, as is the case.

What's the time-frame on her winning that major? Do we have to wait until she decides to retire? After all, that could be forty years from now.

I can't take it any more. I'm no Baldwin, but this is too much. Read my response (it deserved a blog of its own.)

Jennifer, where did you find Pagenet's betting line? Do you have a link? To emphasize the absurdity of such low odds on those props think about this: The top four finishers in the Hope were Chad Campbell, Jesper Parnevik, Scott Verplank and John Huston, all solid journeyman pros. Scott WON a PGA event in 1985 as an amateur. These four have 32 victories among them, and they have won about $55 million on the PGA tour. They have played in a whole slew of men's majors and have yet to win one among them. Other greats and near greats who have yet to win a major are Sergio, Padraig, Darren, Chris DiMarco and more too numerous to mention. Since there are only four majors per year Michelle would have to get and keep a tour card and then do something that only about one in fifty touring pros ever do, win a major. It took Phil more than ten years to win his first major.

As big a Wie fan as I am, I wouldn't make too much of those odds. They are indeed sucker bets.

However, I put some credence into Gary Gilchrist's assessment of Wie. He knows her game as well as just about anyone and has tons of experience with both top girls and boys having been the premier junior coach in the country for a number of years. And he's even molded a major winner or two.

Check out my last post on Ron my Mon's blog.

You may be surprised how well Michelle did on the LPGA tour since she was 13 years old.

I don't count her out of anything she puts her mind to.

Jesper Parnevik and Scott Verplank are NOT journeyman pros. They are solid mid tier PGA professionals. Parnavik is one of the most flexible men alive. He may not have won much lately but he sure does have hot nannies.

Jon, we agree on this one. What is meant by a journeyman is that a man can do his job in any company on any given day. All four are good solid pros.

John Z--
Thanks for your comment. To answer your question, here's a link to the Newcastle Journal article that lists the odds.

You can also call Pagebet directly to confirm: from the US it's 011-44-808-1000-696. Pagebet has a Web site, but it doesn't give any details.

I guess she just hasn't put her mind to winning yet.

I can't believe somebody called Chad Campbell, Jesper Parnevik, Scott Verplank and John Huston 'journeyman pros.' All four are experienced, well-established pros who have made themselves filthy rich through golf.

Also, 2 to 1 odds on Michelle winning a men's major (in a given timeframe unknown to me) would make for a pretty crappy bet.

The odds of Jack Nicklaus winning the 2005 Open at St. Andrews were 10,000 to 1. Now, Michelle's odds of winning a major should be about the same; and if you had £100 to waste, I couldn't blame you for plunking down that money on 10,000 to 1 odds, for if Michelle did win a major, it would probably make you a millionaire.

David

David,
the difference in the Jack and Michelle situations, is that Jack at 65 years of age was obviously unlikely to win under any circumstanaces.

For Michelle, who knows what may or may not happen.

John Z. The 2-1 odds on Wie winning a men's major is for a life time, I believe. It is a sucker bet. Let's say Wie wins a men's major 10 years from now. The foregone interest on your bet, compounded inflation rate for 10 years, the risk of the bookie going bankrupt or in jail for fraud, etc. Heck, I will book the bet and give you better odds. The 16-1 odds on making top 10 in 2006 is also a sucker bet. She may only play one more PGA tournament this year. Another bet I would be happy to book if I could. However, the 16-1 odds in say 2008 may not be bad if Wie continues to improve and gain experience.

For the two LPGA tournaments in Hawaii, Vegas bookies must have the odds for select players. I wonder who is the favorite and what the odds are. As soon as the participating player list is completed, wouldn't there be odds of winning for players like Creamer, Gulbis, Pressel and Wie? This could be the perfect forum for different fans to put money where their blogs are.

Yeah, Jon, and next time you're in Vegas, let us know what those odds are. I tried calling Mandalay Bay and they gave me some line about "giving odds over the phone is illegal."

For at least an over-view of LPGA odds, you can find the best current odds for who will come in 2ND on the LPGA Money List for 2006 (It is a foregone conclusion that Annika will be number one, the bet is Money List without Sorenstam) here:http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/f/card/seasonandspecialbets-seasonandspecialbets/odds/1807110x/sid/789916

Paula Creamer is the favorite at 2.75 to 1
Michelle Wie is in 5th place at 19 to 1
Morgan Pressel is in a tie 22nd with 81 to 1

NOTE: Unless you are the House or the Book, ALL BETS ARE SUCKER BETS. Be Warned.

John,
those odds are very telling.

Michelle is due to play 8 events.
Pressel is due to play 25 or so.

Yet they think Pressel is even more unlikely than Wie to be in 2nd on the money list.

jon and David, when I referred to those golfers as "solid journeyman pros," it was meant as a compliment. Perhaps you guys don't know the meaning of the word. If you re-read my post, you'll find that I did mention that these golfers had won 32 events and $55M among them. However, they haven't won any majors and none so far have won 20 tournaments to qualify for a lifetime exemption, so they aren't in the superstar or star category yet. Very few ever make it to those categories but being a good, solid journeyman pro can make one a wealthy man.

I too, found it shocking that oddsmakers think Michelle Wie is four times more likely to finish 2nd on the money list then Morgan Pressel, and in one-third the tournaments. Now I'm not going to argue that Pressel is more talented then Wie, or even a better player, she is not, but she has proven however that she can compete and be successful on the LPGA tour and at 81-1 that's not a bad bet.

Unfortunately, journeyman is a term with multiple connotations. In the building trades, a journeyman is a fully competent workman who has mastered all aspects of his trade.

In the arts, a journeyman artist is an uninspired technician who produces humdrum works which are technical correct but artistically insipid.

In the first context it is a compliment, in the second an insult. In the context of the golfing blogosphere, it is a term guaranteed to instantly polarize the discussion regardless of how it was used since Golf being a sport is both Art and Craft.

Trip, I can only repeat, unless you are the book or the house, all bets are sucker bets.

When attempting to interpret the meaning of odds, always remember that they are not based solely on the probability of any person winning an event, but also on the amounts of money likely to be wagered on non-winners such that the house feels confident they will make a profit regardless of who wins.

The 2-1 odds for men's Major is not a SUCKER BET. It is not a BET at all. It is simply a move to generate publicity for the bookie. The more outrageous the odds, the greater the publicity. The more publicity, the more bets on other matters.

John Z, regardless of what you said, 'journeyman pro' is a term which should not be applied to those men.

You know how hard it is to get to that level? Chad Campbell, Jesper Parnevik and Scott Verplank /are/ superstars of the golf world, in my eyes.

(Still, I do know what you mean. :)

John--not much of a gambler are you. You are right in the long run the book or house will always have the edge, but in the short term gamblers can always exploit incorrect spreads and longshot bets. My only point on the Pressel bet was that at 81-1 those are long enough odds to merit a small wager, perhaps $100 for the return potential. I've got money on future's bets still riding on both Pittsburg and Seattle, made when the playoffs began. Steeler's at 18-1 and Seattle at 25-1, so I win either way. Who says gambling doesn't pay.

Trip,
I agree that Pressel's odds of 81-1 are too high and are good value for money.

I don't believe that she will do it, but I do believe that she has a much better chance than many of those on the list with shorter odds.

Wie should be longer odds. If she were playing 25 events, than she would have a very good chance, but 8 events, come on.

David, jon, and John, I didn't realize that semantics would be more important than the substance of my post. As far as connotation goes, I did use the adjectives "good" and "solid" when describing these journeyman "pros" so that would connote a very positive view of these guys on my part. David, as good as these guys are I'm afraid "superstars" is a little bit over the top. There would have to be hundreds of superstars if guys with their credentials are awarded that status. But again, it's only a matter of semantics.

Imagine if the draft is reinstated in the next few years, and all of the men are sent off to China... Some of you have too much time to think about this Wie thing. The idea of contemplating the odds on this loooong shot is absurd. Unless you have nothing better to do that is...

Nick, are we going to war with China? Or is China going to be our ally? Maybe China will just be a staging area. What's this about reinstating the draft? Are you joking or what?

Norman,
The business reason that Michelle is 19 to 1 is that the House thinks they believe they are going to get a boatload of bets on her as compared to far less on Pressel. They probably agree with you that it is highly unlikely her limited schedule would allow her to place 1 or 2 on the money list. But just in case lightning strikes, they want to limit their exposure. Hence the less attractive odds.

Trip,

Congratulations on your luck!

However,since the Steelers are a Wild-Card team and only 3 Wild Cards in 30 years have won the Super Bowl; and should the Seahawks win, I believe that they will be the first such winner in the last 30 or 40 years to have never previously won a playoff game, they were far from sure-things. In fact they were sucker bets. Sometimes sucker bets win. But if you had religiously bet equal amounts on the two "best odds" teams for the last 30 years waiting for this "no lose" situation you would have lost more than you stand to gain this year.

So yes, I'm not much of a gambler, but I stand by what I said.

And in the context of this blog, the odds on any of the golfers other than Paula Creamer, and the next one or two positions are almost totally based on the amount of money likely to be bet, not on probability of winning. In other words, a measure not of skill, but of popularity.

John. I can appreciate your view point that all bets are sucker bets unless you are the house. But, then again, so is the stock market. Stocks are also a zero sum game. If you further subtract the transaction fees and the insider information not available to layman, the stocks are definitely a sucker bet. Nonetheless, you can do quite well on a bull market or with an appropriate asset allocation.

The odds are 1.75 to 1 for Creamer, If she wins you get your dollar back plus 1.75. The same with the others, but for them the idfference isn't as great.

It is 1 out of 2.75, 1 out of 19 and 1 out of 81.

Under Par. Your heroine, Hingis, just lost to Clijster in Aussie Open. Guess what her parting words were: "speed is important." Ditto with golf.

Jim C, are you sure about your statement concerning the odds of the various young ladies finishing second on the LPGA money list? Any racetrack or sports book where I've placed a bet always returned the amount of the odds in addition to the original bet. As an example, if one would wager two dollars to win on horse to win at any track or OTB anywhere and at those odds, and the horse won the race. the bet would return $7.50: $5.50=$2.75x2 plus $2.

The site listed the best odds on Creamer as 7 to 4, which is the same as 1.75 to 1. I noticed the first numbers that John gave were all one more than what was listed on the site. In a similar way Wie was 18 (18 to 1)and Pressel 80(80 to 1).

Jim C, if that's the way the odds were stated, you are correct. Some craps tables post odds on the center bets in a similar fashion. For instance, they'll say the odds on a hardway eight are "nine FOR one" instead Of "eight TO one" which amount to the same thing. Makes people think they're getting a better deal.

In the UK the odds posted by a bookmaker state the amount you will win. 2/1 means you will win 2 units for every one places. Win means additional money to that of the wager.

Jon,

What ever made you think Hingis was my heroine? I don't have any heroines.

John said:
Norman,
The business reason that Michelle is 19 to 1 is that the House thinks they believe they are going to get a boatload of bets on her as compared to far less on Pressel. They probably agree with you that it is highly unlikely her limited schedule would allow her to place 1 or 2 on the money list. But just in case lightning strikes, they want to limit their exposure. Hence the less attractive odds.
*********************************

Right you are John. That makes perfect sense.

What if Michelle wins in February, and gets her two year exemption. If she want, and if the LPGA waived the age requirement like they did with Morgan, then Michelle might play a lot more events this year.

Jim C, you've got a lot of if's there, but I hope MW does get her first win sometime this year so you Wie Nuts can put it behind you. The only thing I have trouble with is what will happen with that demanding school schedule? After she does win on the LPGA, will she still have that old reliable excuse "she's only 16" when she doesn't fare so well?

Jim C.
If Michelle were to win, Not while she is still in high school. I do not think the Tour would waive the age 18 requirement unless she had graduated high school. Also, I think it highly doubtful she would ask for a tour card until then because it would limit her options too greatly. She might use the veiled threat of applying and forcing them to deny based on age to win concessions for a few more tournaments though...intrepret the rules to say sponsor exemptions for events you win don't count against your 6 for the year or something to that affect.

Hi Forum,

I breezed thru the blogs at the TravelGolf forums and the only topics that generate much activity were those that used the name Michelle Wie somewhere in the posting.

There was only one other time in the history of golf when a teenage player created such a buzz around the world. Tiger Woods was the first golfer who gained this much attention and diversity of opinion that I can remember in my lifetime.

When Tiger was missing PGA cuts at first, some members of the media (blogging wasn?t around as we know it now) were questioning if he had what it takes to make it on the tour. Whenever one of these articles was published it would generate hundreds of letters to the editor in support of Woods and a few that were not so supportive or crude and or threatening in their very nature. Tiger was given police protection at the early events he entered, that continues on into today. The difference now is he has his own security team mixed in with the police presence. This is the price of fame.

Michelle Wie now steps onto the same worldwide stage as Tiger did a decade ago with a head start in the worldwide recognition department and nearly the same diversity of opinion that met Tiger?s début as a professional on the PGA tour.

To silence the critics all Tiger had to do was win when he was twenty years old. For Michelle to silence her critics, all she has to do is win at sixteen years old.

Now that got some response but any article on her playing in the men's events seems to make them all come out of the..... I just want to watch her play and I don't care where it is or what event it is. I am tired of the PGA clones.

"Comment from: dave [Visitor] · http://HarborHills.BlogSpot.Com
Now that got some response but any article on her playing in the men's events seems to make them all come out of the..... I just want to watch her play and I don't care where it is or what event it is. I am tired of the PGA clones."

Dave I am a golf traditionalist, yet I don?t play with hickory clubs or wet feathers sewn in leather for balls. The game evolved beyond that equipment and moved forward to the modern equipment in use today.

At one time women and men did not play together on a golf course. The game evolved beyond that with men and women playing at the same time on a golf course.

Michelle Wie is just another evolution in the game of golf and she will not be the last girl who wants to compete in the field with men of the highest caliber. Will she be successful? Who knows? Should she be given the opportunity to try? Of course she should, if the game of golf is allowed to evolve.

Unfortunately those who have not evolved along with the game of golf will challenge her participation in men?s tournaments. I call these the ?Evolutionary Challenged (EC)? and have read many of their posts in this forum.

We doubt if the EC/s still play with hickory clubs and they will use the modern equipment of today. It is also guaranteed they will not play with feather balls and place some of the latest Titleist or Nike balls in their bag.

The game of golf continues to evolve beyond them and they will always be left behind, until one day when it dawns on them and they decide to update their cranial equipment.

WIE IS 16/1 FOR ANY TOP 10 FINISH IN THE US PGA MENS TOURNAMENTS.

Wie just announced her next try against men will be in a tournament in S. Korea in May, the SK Telekom Open. Won't be a big deal if she made the cut there since Se-Ri Pak already did.

It WILL be a big deal, Paul W, if Michelle finishes higher than Se-Ri did!

BB, you may be right. It looks like the SK Telecom Open is an Asian Tour event, Se-Ri Pak made the cut at a KPGA event. The SK Telecom isn't one of the top events in the Asian Tour with only a $500k purse, but it has attracted some top players like Couples. Se-Ri's event was also on a relatively short course.

Boola Boss--We are talking about an third-tier Asian Tour event, one which a women has already made the cut at. My club's open men's championship is coming up this Spring, maybe Michelle wants to come and compete at this event, the talent level should be abou the same as the Telecom Open.

Trip:

Wow, your Men's Open will draw K.J. Choi and Fred Couples this year?

They're both confirmed for the SK Telecom.

As several people have pointed out above the SK Telecom is on the Asian Tour--which is one of the 6 major PGA recognized tours whose players qualify for World Golf Ranking points. See the link above for details. The Korean Tour is not so ranked.

Nevertheless, do not discount Se-Ri Pak's qualification. She played well in that tournament and deserves high credit for having done so.

Thanks, Paul W, and others for that info. I will keep that in mind the next time I discuss her men's tournaments on this blog and other DB boards.