Re bookies' odds, no-one is saying that they represent some sort of Gospel truth.
I was quoting them in relation to the earlier posts which were debating whether it was "optimistic" to think we will be Top 4, or "pessimistic" to think that we wont.
I'm sure that, like Goldilocks, we each think that our own expectations are just right; anyone expecting more is too optimistic, and anyone expecting less is too pessimistic.
All I'm saying is that the bookies' odds give and approximate indication of the centre of the bell curve. If the betting market has settled down at odds showing that LFC has 30-40% chance of top 4, then that is quite a good indication that about 50% of betters think our chances are better than that, and around 50% think our chances are worse.
Obviously the odds reflect things other than individual better's personal opinions. They take into account the opinion of the bookies' own experts, and the need to make a profit, and can also be influenced by one person betting hundred thousand pounds on one outcome, which can outweigh ten thousand people betting ten pounds on the other outcome. Also not every better is motivated by a desire for profit. Some bet based on what they hope will happen (England to win the world cup, LOL)
But even allowing for those other things, imho, the fact that the bookies have our odds quite a bit longer than MU and Arse is a fairly reliable indication that the majority of betters, across all teams or none, across all bet sizes, think that those two teams have a better chance than we do.
One problem referring to the bookies favorites is that things can change in a blink, and they do. Remember our odds for winning the FA Cup before and after the draw?
Yeah, odds change over time. But that does not mean that they were "wrong" before they changed, or that they were "wrong" after they changed.
Isnt it correct that our chances of winning the cup are higher given a LFC v Blackburn; MU v Arse draw than they would be following a Arse v Blackburn; MU v LFC draw?
I think we were roughly 3/1 for top 4 before beating Southampton, and now we're about 2/1. We might have been as much as 5/1 to 10/1 if we had lost that single game. But I think that's a reasonable reflection of reality, rather than simply a quirk which demontrate a flaw in the way that odds are decided upon.
Same might happen when we play MU. What the odds are at the start of play will depend on what has happened between now and then. But if either team wins that game, then their odds will inevitably shorten, and the opponent's will lengthen.
And that is because it is true that, for example, LFC has a much better chance of finishing top 4 if it beats MU compared to if it loses. It does not mean, of course, that LFC is guaranteed top 4 by winning that one match, or that top 4 is impossible following a defeat.
A team that is punished by a difficult run in their schedule will have bookies' odds flow away from them, even if they are doing just as well or better than last season.
That's Spurs, whom IMO are in great position for 3rd or 4th, despite their current 7th place in the table, because they have actually improved upon their equivalent results from last season.
Excellent points and, of course, that is the whole point of this thread. ie to show that just because one team gets 7 points from (say) Games 20, 21, 22 does not always mean that they should be considered to have done "better" than another team which gets 4 points from its own Games 20, 21, 22.
My other recent posts higher up the the thread explain why my personal opinion is that we are more likely to be outside the top 4 than within it. I am not basing my personal opinion on the bookies' odds. I was just mentioning those odds to compare them to my personal opinion.
Contrary to the bookies', I think Arse has lower than 80% chance, but - as per the bookies - I also think Arse's chances are better than any of the other 4.
Contrary to the bookies', I think Spurs has higher than 17% chance, but - as per the bookies - I do not think Spurs chances are better than LFC or MU. I would not be surprised if Spurs finish above Southampton, but, from an LFC perspective, the relative chances of Spurs/Soton compared to each other matter less than the fact that LFC's chances are lower relative to both Arse and MU.