The Masters: What are the odds of a Tiger Woods blowout and where do you make the bet?

While in Vegas, I made some wagers on the Masters. If I win, I'll mail them my betting ticket and they'll send me a check. I bet small amounts on long shots (between 25/1 and 75/1) in hopes of a nice payout. But I stayed away from Tiger because the odds were ridiculously low at 10/13 - LESS THAN EVEN MONEY! That means you win $10 for every $13 you wager. When we got back, one of my buddies has an account with sportsbook dot com and checked the odds. The odds on Tiger there were nearly twice as good at 11/10, so he put $100 on that for me.

WKW,

I personally never bet on golf, it's perhaps the most difficult sport on which to get anywhere close to the proper odds.

One of the guys in our firm has an account with Pinnacle Sports which is certified in Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles. He has a connection on that island so as to avoid any conflict with US laws concerning internet wagering. Enforcement of these laws has thus far been very inconsistent.

Before placing any bets, first an account must be established which, of course, would guarantee payment of all losing wagers to Pinnacle.

The odds on virtually any sporting event from horse racing to soccer to cricket to golf are posted daily on the Pinnacle website. Wagers can be placed on line as long as sufficient funds are available in the account to cover losses. No wagering on credit is allowed.

As far as betting on Tiger goes, Shanks is correct. Because Tiger is so good, the oddsmakers always make him the prohibitive favorite at ridiculously low odds. Most neophyte bettors simply don't realize how badly they are being victimized by the super low odds.

A man who works at a Las Vegas sports book once casually told me that far more money has been lost betting on Woods than won. Young people hoping to get a winning ticket on Tiger just can't fathom how poor the odds are on Woods.

I checked the Pinnacle website, and Woods is now 5 to 4 to win the Masters, a lot better than the site quoted by Shanks.

A $100 wager on Woods would get a profit of $125, quoted as "+125." A similar bet on Phil would render $1000, on Vijay $2200, on Geoff Ogilvy $3000, on Steve Stricker $7000, and if Zack Johnson were to repeat $7500.

Later in the week, Pinnacle will quote additional odds on some propositions, most notably the "imaginary matchups." These are notorious sucker bets where Tiger is concerned. The handicapper always puts Tiger up against the next best golfer in the field, the odds being posted something similar to this:

T. Woods -275
P. Mickelson+235

Sometimes these odds are for the entire tournament, but most often for one round at a time.

This means that for round one for instance, a bettor would have to lay $275 on Woods to win $100, whereas a punter who liked Phil would need only to bet $100 on Lefty in order to win $235. The disparity between the two larger numbers is the bookmakers edge, or the "juice" or the "vigorish" as it's commonly known.

In other words, while Tiger is a true superstar and possibly the best ever, the bookies have made him the worst bet ever.

Alex USMC 1969-73

WKW,

Sadly PGA Punter appears to have gone AWOL unless you can lure him back to give us some tips.

Of course he has the options of on-line and telephone betting or can simply stroll across to his high-street bookie.

I spoke with The Punter about that and he rarely leaves the house to make a wager. Usually does it all on-line.

Alex, you're usually right about most things...but this: "The disparity between the two larger numbers is the bookmakers edge, or the 'juice' or the 'vigorish' as it's commonly known" is misstated.

The "juice" or "vigorish" or "vig" is the interest owed on top of any bets lost to a bookmaker, or interest owed on a loan from a'non-standard' loan provider.

The 'bookmakers edge' is really more commonly known as "only a flippin' idiot would bet on that". ;)

BV,

Okay, I'll give you that one. But only technically. That amount lost by making such a foolish bet would only increase the juice.

I think we both agree that putting money on Tiger at those paltry odds is paving the road to bankruptcy.

Alex USMC 1969-73

I used to bet on golf through a U.K. based bookie but now it is impossible because of a law regarding offshore internet gambling. Right now they're quoting Tiger at even money. Betting on golf is like betting on a horse race with 150 horses, it's tough. The general idea in any form of gambling is to bet a little with a chance to win a lot. Betting $100 on Tiger at even money is dumb IMO since you can lose $100 and only win $100. I bet $100 on Angel Cabrera one year at 200-1 ! even though he had some high finishes at Augusta. He missed the cut. Anyway there are a bunch of players who are playing good right now like Olazabal at 80-1.

OK, I’m posting this with the benefit of hindsight (and I should also declare an interest: I work for William Hill, the UK bookie), but I hope I can prove that golf betting isn’t the lost cause most people here seem to believe.

The assumption so far has been that people bet on a golfer to win – which, as Immelman’s superb victory proved, can be pretty tricky. Honestly, who thought the South African was going to be donning the green jacket last Sunday evening?

In actual fact, most people betting on golf choose to bet each-way – meaning they make a win bet and a place bet, with the bookie paying out on the place bet part of the wager at one-quarter of the odds if the player finishes in the top five placings.

This can provide a decent return even if your chosen player doesn’t win – especially with Tiger dominating the betting, which pushes the odds out on the other players as the bookies try to tempt people away from the world number one.

For example, if you had bet £10 each-way on Phil Mickelson, twice Masters champion and well-backed at 11/1 this weekend, you would have spent £20 (£10 on the win part, £10 on the place) and got back £37.50 (£10 multiplied by one-quarter of 11/1 = £27.50 plus the return of the £10 place stake).

Needless to say there was little value in betting each-way on Tiger, even though we had him at 5/4 rather than evens – £10 each way would have returned £13.30 for your £20 outlay. But the same bet on Padraig Harrington, another major winner, would have returned £65, while anyone who bet on Immelman at the 150/1 being offered on Thursday morning would have won £1,895 (£10 x 150/1 = £1,500 for the win, plus £10 x (150/1 x ¼) = £375 for the place, plus the £20 stake).

For the record, I had Retief Goosen, Justin Rose and Adam Scott at prices ranging from 20/1 to 33/1 – and didn’t win a penny. But the first two gave me a decent run for my money almost right up to Sunday’s thrilling finish.

Thanks Basil - wish I had gone each-way at the Grand National instead of going for a win. Likewise for The Masters (although I didn't bet in the end). You seem to be the only one who found anything thrilling about Sunday's finish? Perhaps because you actually had money on it?

Basil is absolutely right (even if he works for a bookie!). It is difficult to predict an outright winner with so many good golfers in a tournament (and we should know!). However, places are a lot easier. It's even easier when you use our new website. PGA Punter may be gone AWOL, but you don't need him any more! At Golf Predictor, we number crunch all the data for you and give you a percentage probability of each golfer (yes, all 160 odd!) to win, complete with comprehensive stats for each player. There are currently 26 charts for displaying golfer and tournament info graphically and it is free to register. You will only see limited results, but you can subscribe for a very modest fee to gain access to data for the entire field.

Apologies if you think this is spam, which it isn't. This is pertinent to the discussion and therefore, by definition, not spam!