As stupid as predicting the outcome of golf tournaments is, I thought I’d chime in with a prediction before heading out of town tomorrow morning for several days of playing golf in the morning and watching the Masters in the afternoon.
The betting odds on Tiger Woods winning the 2007 Masters is 5 to 4 according to Ladbrokes, arguably the world’s best source for such things. (I’ll be interested to read what our own PGA Punter has to say about this but I’ll wager a large sum that he won’t want any of that action. I see only two bets that make sense, assuming you’d be interested in a larger payout than winning $5 for every $4 wagered. I like Phil Mickelson getting 8 to 1 to win. And I like Vijay Singh getting 4 to 1 to finish in the top four places.)
Those odds are stunning. It’s basically a statement that Tiger Woods has as much chance of winning at Augusta as the rest of the field combined. Wow, that’s dominance! But I’ve got a feeling that something special will happen this year. Vijay Singh has won twice already, once when Woods was in the field. Phil Mickelson has won once also and is reported to be playing extremely well right now. Apparently, the windy conditions in Florida masked the quality of his game. The man just hasn’t learned to handle strong wind yet. Obviously there are other winners like Adam Scott & Henrik Stenson that have shown recent winning form but I like the old guard to have at showdown on the back nine Sunday. Perhaps we’ll get lucky and it will rival the Nicklaus/Miller/Weiskopf dual of 1975.
| « Tiger Woods choked at the Masters | Sergio Garcia inducted into Spitting Hall of Shame » |
Comment feed for this post
Jason Scott Deegan:
The Accidental Golfer:
Katharine Dyson:
Kiel Christianson:
PT Barnum coined the phrase, "A sucker is born every minute."
If that is true,anyone dumb enough to take Woods at those paltry odds should have been twins.
The true odds on Tiger to win the Masters' are slightly better than three to one. While no bookie or gambling site can be expected to pay true odds, a more realistic ratio would be about 2.5 to 1.
But I can imagine some young dudes getting caught up in Tiger mania and making such a foolish wager. 5 to 4 odds would be an insane bet even if Tiger wins.
The online betting sites that I've viewed have Woods at 2.5 and 2.6 to 1. Still no bargain, but a whole lot better than 5 to 4.
Actually, Woods was the odds on favorite with Ladbroke's going into the final round at 1.8 to 1.
Zach was about 30 to 1 going into Sunday, and 250 to 1 before the start of the Masters'.
Only goes to prove that there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Even Secretariat, John Henry, and Joe Louis lost occasionally.
Anthony U says that millions of pounds were lost on Tiger on Sunday.
Zach must have had a substantial amount riding on him or else the odds would have been hundreds to one.