William Hill betting makes USA a favorite

[appoo]

William-Hill betting has named the US in the top 13 for World Cup 2006. ahead of Turkey, Ireland, Mexico, and Sweeden. I can't think of another country with more pressure on it. The Formidable, and mostly ignorant US media will be ON US to get to the Semi's. anything else will be considered a failure to the common us fan.

[Rocket]

Originally posted by appooOnU
William-Hill betting has named the US in the top 13 for World Cup 2006. ahead of Turkey, Ireland, Mexico, and Sweeden.
Actually, William Hill gives USA, Mexico, Turkey, and Cameroon the same odds to win the cup.

http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp?CouponChoice=FB181155&Rules=true

[NASL Fan]

Okay, so we've improved from 250-1 or thereabout to 67-1. But we're still behind Colombia 41-1 and Paraguay 51-1. That doesn't seem right. On the other hand, Scotland is at 751-1 (!) and Honduras at 401-1.?

[TeamUSA]

I would think that anything less than the semi finals would be a failure. Keep in mind that the young guys have been playing as long as their counterparts in the world. They have a great example to follow in this years team. Some of the players from the 2002 Cup will be back again in 2006 and from the looks on some faces they want to win it all. Not only this but the US u-23s are doing well in England too, against reserve teams but still!

[Rocket]

Originally posted by TeamUSA
I would think that anything less than the semi finals would be a failure.
It'll be pretty tough for the U.S. to make the semi's.

You can pretty much count on Germany and Brazil to make it to the semi's -- the host nation has made it to the semi's or better in 8 of the last 12 World Cups, and Brazil has made the finals 3 times in a row.

So realistically, the U.S. will likely end up battling it out with France, Argentina, the Netherlands, England, etc for the remaining 2 spots in the semi's.

[MarioKempes]

The goal for the US is to repeat 1/4 final finish. Anything else is gravy.

[todda74]

why are they even putting odds out now? It's still 4 years away and anything can happen. Are there people that are actually already betting on this?
This seems a little short bus to me.

[Sinko]

Originally posted by todda74
why are they even putting odds out now? It's still 4 years away and anything can happen. Are there people that are actually already betting on this?
This seems a little short bus to me.
Not much of a punter, huh?

It's because odds change.

Betting long term you may get better odds than closer to the event.

Or maybe not.

That's the gamble.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by MarioKempes
The goal for the US is to repeat 1/4 final finish. Anything else is gravy.

That may be the goal, but MY goal is that we make the second round. To do so in 3 of 4 World Cups would be more than enough for me. Teams that make the QFs twice in a row are usually elite teams. We're not there yet. In the last two World Cups, only Brazil and Germany made the QFs both times. Think about that for a minute!

Back to Back Quarter-Finalists:

1998-2002 Brazil, Germany
1994-1998 Brazil, Germany, Holland, Italy
1990-1994 Italy, Germany
1986-1990 Argentina, Germany*, England

Now, can people please reconsider the goals? Making the semi-finals is <i> possible</i>, but making the QFs again would be such an enormous accomplishment.

As an aside, since we've already made the QFs last time, the odds of making it back to back are determined soley by the odds of making it in 2006 (obviously, but I anticipate someone pointing this out). I just am showing the types of teams that do it twice in a row. It is a sign of greatness. Does anyone really believe we're a top 8 team? Seriously, we are not.

With these types of expectations, I am surprised Arena wants to stay on.




*people sometimes forget how damned good the Germans are.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by todda74
why are they even putting odds out now? It's still 4 years away and anything can happen. Are there people that are actually already betting on this?
This seems a little short bus to me.

A better question is why anyone bets on this stuff. The deck is stacked totally in favor of the house. It's a joke. The math is plain to see. Gambling is for losers (unless you can find your own betting partners).

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by TeamUSA
I would think that anything less than the semi finals would be a failure. Keep in mind that the young guys have been playing as long as their counterparts in the world. They have a great example to follow in this years team. Some of the players from the 2002 Cup will be back again in 2006 and from the looks on some faces they want to win it all. Not only this but the US u-23s are doing well in England too, against reserve teams but still!

You're Bruce Arena's worst nightmare. Making the semi-finals would take a near miracle. Making the QFs is a long shot as well. I want to prove that we're a top 16 team. I believe we are, just barely.

[Foosinho]

Originally posted by MarioKempes
The goal for the US is to repeat 1/4 final finish. Anything else is gravy.

I concur. A goal should be difficult, but not astronomically so. I think the quarters fall in that realm.

[Lab Mouse]

Why are we putting odds on the World Cup in 2006 when we've barely finished the 2002 finals? ;)

Anything can happen between now and then. I'll wait and place my money when I know who actually has qualified.

[Sinko]

Originally posted by BenReilly


A better question is why anyone bets on this stuff. The deck is stacked totally in favor of the house. It's a joke. The math is plain to see. Gambling is for losers (unless you can find your own betting partners).
Spoken like a true cognoscenti.:rolleyes:

[Sinko]

Originally posted by Lab Mouse
Why are we putting odds on the World Cup in 2006 when we've barely finished the 2002 finals? ;)

Anything can happen between now and then. I'll wait and place my money when I know who actually has qualified.
But where's the fun in that?:)

[diablodelsol]

Originally posted by BenReilly


A better question is why anyone bets on this stuff. The deck is stacked totally in favor of the house. It's a joke. The math is plain to see. Gambling is for losers (unless you can find your own betting partners).

You don't know much about sports betting do you?

The deck is not stacked for the house. The house just takes a percentage of the total money bet on the game.

[Rocket]

Originally posted by diablodelsol

You don't know much about sports betting do you?

The deck is not stacked for the house. The house just takes a percentage of the total money bet on the game.
I think you're wrong here, Diablo.

William Hill isn't offering pari-mutual betting where a fixed cut is taken from the total amount bet. Instead, the firm is offering odds that will be fixed until Sept 1, 2004.

So if, for instance, an unexpectedly large number of people bet on England at 10 to 1 odds and England happens to win WC 2006, William Hill could lose a good deal of money.

[nowhere]

Just keep in mind that this time four years ago, Holland had pretty good odds to win it all in 2002.

[voros]

Originally posted by vw

I think you're wrong here, Diablo.

William Hill isn't offering pari-mutual betting where a fixed cut is taken from the total amount bet. Instead, the firm is offering odds that will be fixed until Sept 1, 2004.

So if, for instance, an unexpectedly large number of people bet on England at 10 to 1 odds and England happens to win WC 2006, William Hill could lose a good deal of money.

Unlikely since they'll get the Lion's share of their action after that date anyway, and they'll adjust the odds accordingly to try and even the risk on both sides.

The worst beating bookies take usually occur in American Football where the fluctuation of point spreads can cause them to get middled (have to pay out to both sides of a bet).

[Deitch]

Originally posted by vw

So if, for instance, an unexpectedly large number of people bet on England at 10 to 1 odds and England happens to win WC 2006, William Hill could lose a good deal of money.

I think (think is the key word) they would then lower the odds on England to make it an unexciting wager and raise the odds on other countries. So if a lot of money was bet on England at 10-1, it would go down to 5-1, 2-1, 1-2, etc. Meanwhile, to hedge their bets, Germany's, Brazil's, etc would go up. If Brazil was 25-1 and England 1-1 who is the world going to put their money on? Eventually we have equal money all around. Not saying there aren't fiascos on occasion but they know what they're doing.