« Tiger Woods on the prowl for fifth Masters win, Lorena Ochoa unbeatable, a paint brush is golf's most unlikely training aid and GFB takes the gloves off!PGA of America President Brian Whitcomb chats with Golf for Beginners about the McGladrey Team Championship »


Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

Didn't Lorena win the Women's Btitish Open last year? That;s a major isn't it?

If you're going to bet on Lorena winning four majors in 2008, you should get at least fifty to one on such a wager. If you don't, you're throwing your money away.

Lorena is at the top of her game right now, but I'll say that she will win no more than two majors. The same goes for Woods. Those two are the best in the sport, but there are just too many top-notch players around for anyone to sweep four majors in one year.

I agree with you that Bubbles couldn't have come within shouting distance of Lorena at the Safeway, that's a given to anyone with a smattering of common sense.

However, on some of the Wie sycophant websites, several people thought that Bubbles was not only going to win the Safeway, but that she was going to shatter the alltime LPGA record for strokes under par by as much as six shots.

Of course, many of these misguided folks probably think the earth is flat.
2008-03-31 @ 14:22
Comment from: BV [Visitor]
Ummmm, I have to agree with Alex. Lorena won her "first" major at the 2007 Women's British Open.

Wishfully thinking - I'd LOVE to see her make a grand slam this year. She certainly has the focus and the game to do it...but I'd only bet real money with 50-1 (or higher) odds.

Nice photo of the "injured" Ms Wie. Thanks!
2008-03-31 @ 17:30
Comment from: Stacy Solomon [Member]
Duly noted and corrected. I must have been on another planet when I typed that one.

And BV, 50-1 odds? Wow, that's a bit high for a girl who has won two out of the three tournaments she's entered this year alone!

In addition to winning the RICOH British Open at St. Andrews, she followed with wins at the next two events. Yes, I think she's capable of a sweep.
2008-03-31 @ 17:44
Comment from: joe cool [Visitor] Email
It seems that Bubbles has already set the stage for 2008 by declaring that her "wrists shall never be 100% again." Should she continue her golf career and that is debatable, she will always have an excuse when she plays poorly. She has become such a non news item that even Dottie Pepper doesn't mention MW.
2008-03-31 @ 22:34
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
joe cool,

If you have the time, and if you want some inexpensive entertainment, try reading Stacy's archived blog of April 2006. It's the one about Bubbles upstaging Morgan Pressel and Annika Sorenstam.

Some of the predictions by the Wiewee's are absolutely hilarious. No wonder those folks don't post here anymore. What could they possibly say? At least Stacy has seen the light.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-01 @ 09:57
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

Actually, 50 to 1 is not too high at all.

Remember, you would be betting that in advance that Lorena would sweep all four women's majors. If she were to finish even 2nd in one of them your bet would be lost. Three wins and one second by even one stroke and you would be a loser.

The proper way to compute the odds on that proposition are as follows: Let's say the odds on any one major tournament for Lorena to win are 3 to 1. That would mean that the true odds on Lorena winning all four majors would be three to the fourth power to one or 81 to 1.

So,if you don't get at least 50 to 1, you're throwing your money away.

And the odds given on Woods are even worse. One internet wagering site actually has Tiger listed at slightly less than 10 to 1 to win all four majors.

Since Woods' career record in major wins is a little better than one out of four, the odds against him winning any one event are about 2.75 to 1. Extrapolated to the fourth power, Tiger's true odds against winning all four majors are about 50 to 1. Anything less than 40 to 1 on Tiger is a real sucker bet.

Sure, both Lorena and Woods are CAPABLE of making a clean sweep. Actually doing it is quite something else.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-01 @ 13:35
Comment from: Stacy Solomon [Member]
Thanks for making an easy explanation of it, Alex.

Since I don't ever wager beyond my means, I still would gamble on Ochoa's dominance of the majors this year. So, when my prediction comes true, I'll probably kick myself that I failed to wager anything!
2008-04-01 @ 13:41
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

If your serious about the possibilty of Lorena winning a grand slam, and you'd like to wager on it, here is a suggestion for you that will not cost you a fortune. In fact, the most you can lose with this method is forty dollars.

Here's how: Using the odds quoted in your blog by "Coral",Lorena has odds of 6 to 4 to win the Kraft. A wager of $40 on Lorena will get you a profit of $60 if she wins. Now your betting stake will be $100. If you then "parlay" that amount on Lorena in the LPGA Championship at those same odds of 6 to 4, and she again wins you would rake in a profit of $150. Add that to your $100 bet and you will now have a betting stake of $250!

Now, it gets better. The odds quoted on Lorena in the US Women's OPen are 15 to 8. If you were to bet the $250 on her, and if she were to win at those odds, you would make an additional haul of $470. Not bad for a paltry initial wager of $40. At this point, you would probably be tempted to "drag", salt away a good portion of your winnings. That would be the smart move.

But let's say that you would rather exhibit some of that old New York gambling flare. You say, "What the hell, I said Lorena was going to win the Grand Slam, so I'm going all the way!"

So you plunk the whole $720 down on LOrena at the Ricoh at 7 to 4. She laps the field in the UK and VOILA! You collect another $1260 profit!

Now, your original $40 bet has magically turned into close to two large, and all Lorena had to do was wins for majors for you, and all you had to do was let your winnings ride. Seems easy, doesn't it?

So where do you now stand? Your total now in your bank account would be $1980. Subtracting you initial $40 stake your profit would be $1940.

Dividing that amount by 40 would give you 49.5, very close to the 50 to 1 that I originally quoted.

If you can get that bet down with a legitimat house, that would be the way to go. I might do it mysel.

Stacy, go for it!
2008-04-01 @ 19:00
Comment from: Stacy Solomon [Member]
I just might...it sounds pretty easy. A $40 investment and possible returns of almost $2k for Lorena Ochoa...hmmm...

I'm going to look at the site further today.
2008-04-02 @ 10:25
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
I must say I like the sound of your betting system. Here if I put on a bet of the equivalent of $40 at 6:4 I would certainly get $60 - but that would be total return not profit, i.e. the profit would be $20 and so would finally end up as $295, following the other odds quoted, not almost $2K. Coral odds have already shortened, Stacy, so your possible returns dwindling fast. I'll save my money for the Grand National - our biggest horserace - or simply give it to charity - as selecting the winner of that may be a complete lottery, but at least it's over in minutes. I'd still love a clean sweep for Lorena, however.
2008-04-02 @ 13:44
Comment from: Stacy [Visitor] Email
It's more fun discussing the "odds" possibilities for Lorena Ochoa than Tiger Woods' (Masters) who is 10/11 on Sky bet.

2008-04-02 @ 14:36
Comment from: smudge [Visitor]
Um so what was it again that "forced" Wie to miss the Safeway? Oh the "tweaking" of the previous phantom injury to the wrist as a result of hitting a phantom ball imbedded in the gnarly rough on the Stanford driving range. Well, all is well going forward as I see Wie has done to Stanford what she does best. Withdraw. Is a bit sad she is failing in so many ways, as I'm sure with better guidance she could have at least become a decent contributing member of society, rather than a ridiculously rich uneducated spoiled brat, who used to have a nice golf swing and some promise.
2008-04-02 @ 17:39
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

You're a very nice lady, and I certainly enjoy bantering with you, but I've got to tell you that you are dead wrong about your odds and payout calculations. I have wagered with Ladbrokes while in the UK on several occasions, and a winning 40 pound sterling wager at ^ to 4 would get one a return of 100 pounds sterling.

Just to emphasize the fallacy of your arithmetic, according to your method of ciphering, an even money, i.e., ! to 1 wager of $40 would only return the original bet. Now, doesn't that seem silly?

And further, what would then be the result of a winning wager at LESS than even money? Would the successful punter actually LOSE money on a winning bet?

My advice to you, dear Wendy, is to ask your husband about this one. I'm sure that he'll know.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-02 @ 17:45
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
correction: "6 to 4"
2008-04-02 @ 17:48
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Alex, you're right, I'm dead wrong. (We don't have the word "mispoke" yet). I'd pretend to blame my calculator, but fear that would be too transparent for anyone to believe. The 2K just struck me as too much for such paltry odds and I got carried away from there. However, you are dead wrong if you think my husband knows anything about calculating odds - except at cards strangely enough. Your usual stereotyping of course.

Odds shortened again this a.m. Good luck if you did place the bet (which I doubt).
2008-04-03 @ 10:13
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

That just shows what can happen if one is fortunate enough to parlay the winnings of one modest wager three additional times. A sort of geometric progression.

But never think that such a feat will ever be easy.

I at times have been a bettor at the thoroughbred race. Perhaps too often.

Occasionally I attempt to parlay three horses, usually the three strongest favorites on the program. In perhaps fifty tries at this method, I've been successful exactly twice.

I've attempted to parlay four horses maybe five times without ever winning once.

As far as betting on the Kraft, I never bet on golf. With Lorena at only 5 to 4, she is a very poor bet. Paula Creamer at 20 to 1 is tempting, but still rather shaky.

Wendy, are you actually accusing me of stereotyping? Perish the thought! I think I'll have a good cry.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-03 @ 10:46
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Stacy - quickly, whilst Alex is doing his mascara repairs - did you place the bet, or not?
2008-04-03 @ 14:28
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email

This is why, some years ago, they programmed the Barbie doll to say, "Math is tough!" They had surveyed little girls and found that it was a common sentiment. Of course, the femi-nazis threw a hissy fit and the toy company decided to placate them by programming the doll to say something else. However, based on what has transpired here, I would have to say that the market research was spot on.

As for the doll, I have some helpful suggestions as to what it could be programmed to say. One possibility is, "Where is the vacuum cleaner?" Another would be, "Dinner will be ready soon." Then there is, "I can't play golf today; I have to wash my husband's socks."

I can't decide which is my favorite.
2008-04-03 @ 18:54
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Judge Smails,

Yes, the weaker sex does seem to have considerable difficulty with the definitive sciences such as chemistry, physics, and pursuits like structural engineering, architecture,and ship building.

However, women do excel in ethereal things like sociology, behavorism, and women's studies.

Also, they climb the ladder in corporations by virtue of countless lawsuits, the method du jour of 21st century females.

Incidentally, where have the wannabe feminazi Wiebots gone? Stanley, Norman, putt4par, ONe-Putt, where are you guys? Still think that Bubbles will get that first win before July 31st? And where is Ghet Rheel, the Astroturf Conspiracy buff? I'm convinced that the only way we will hear from these clowns again will be if Bubblesis within three shots of the lead after round one in her next event. That is, if she actually does play in another LPGA tournament in 2008.

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-03 @ 19:17
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Still playing with Barbie dolls at your age, Judge? It was odds on that Alex would finally be right about something, I suppose. Surely I have already set your mind at rest regarding the importance I place on my domestic chores?

Eagerly await list of bridges, buildings, ships, inventions and "Laws" etc, with your names on them. No lawsuits here, Alex, but then I was sensible enough to work for a meritocracy and no, it wasn't in Human Resources (they were a tough bunch though).

2008-04-04 @ 10:56
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email

The argument here is the differences in mathematical and mechanical abilities between the sexes in general, not between specific individuals, although I dare say that both the Judge and I would be able to assemble a packaged bicycle in less time than you would require for such a task.

And furthermore, Wendy darling, if I took the time to make a list of my accomplishments in various scientific fields, I am certain that you would doubt them just as you doubted my findings concerning the golf odds.

I think we can agree that at least in the field of fine arts such as music and painting, women over the last century have had opportunity at least as much as their male counterparts. Many women have excelled as virtuosi on many musical instruments. Some aspects of fine arts at which the ladies have failed abysmally are in the roles of composers and conductors. Tell me, Wendy, who is your favorite female conductor of a major symphony orchestra? How about your favorite female composer with the stature of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, or Mozart?

Alex USMC 1969-73
2008-04-04 @ 11:52
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email
Yes, Alex, but we know how important those illustrious fields are. Western civilization definitely would not have achieved ascendancy without sociology and behaviorism, and now, with the embrace of women's studies, the perpetuation of that status is assured.
2008-04-04 @ 13:09
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]


"I will only add in justice to men that though to the larger and more trifling part of the sex, imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms, there is a portion of them too reasonable and too well informed themselves to desire anything more in woman than ignorance".
2008-04-04 @ 13:39
Comment from: Stacy Solomon [Member]

I didn't have the opportunity to get back on line until just now, so no, I didn't place the bet. And no, I'm not a chicken for $40 bucks either guys. I'll probably have a chance to re-read these comments and place my bet for the final three majors.

I'm still rooting for Ochoa to win, and, from what I can see, she's primed and ready.

Alex, As far as I can see, the "Wiebots" have left town...

To Alex and Judge...I own several businesses in male dominated fields (mechanical repair, car sales) and must state that when women come into my shop, they are pretty much clueless as to how a car works. I do not repair cars but can say that I know much more than many men or women who as for our assistance.

I will agree with Alex that women were once trained in the fine arts which lends a predisposition to those endeavors but times are changing. I graduated from the Bronx High School of Science (along with many other women) and find that, in the fields of both mathematics and the Sciences, women are starting to gain ground.
2008-04-04 @ 14:48
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor] Email

I graduated from Bronx Science, too.

As far as your perception goes, all will become clear in time.
2008-04-04 @ 18:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
The broads will never gain enough ground.

It ain't in their genes.

Alex USMC 2969-73
2008-04-04 @ 20:33
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Just to bring a little happiness to you both (I don't bother to argue with them, Stacy)...... many years ago as a lowly first-line manager (and the only female one) in a manufacturing plant the CEO thought it would be a whizz to give me the task of recruiting female graduate engineers (obviously under pressure from the US, as this would never have occurred to my lot). Despite targeting key universities, & working closely with our Graduate Recruitment Manager, I failed to recruit a single female - and this not in a heavy manufacturing environment, but a futuristic electrical/chemical one.

Just placed our bets on The Grand National for this afternoon, one at 12:1 and t'other at 25:1, £10 each to win. Don't think I'll need the calculator for that one - they'll both fall at the first fence anyway - or the last.

BTW Alex - have you been travelling with Dr. Who lately? You might want to check your dates - I know it would be impossible for you to make a mathematical error.

2008-04-05 @ 10:06

Comments are closed for this post.