A variety of articles have looked at the betting on the Nobel, the pre-announcement predictions, and more generally the variety of often unexpected winners that have emerged over the years.
So, for example:
Sure, the betting lists and odds must be taken with a massive grain of salt, but what seems clear now is that they are of particular value right when they first go up -- when the odds are set by the bookies, and not by who places money on them (leading to absurd distortions such as Bob Dylan suddenly counting as a favorite) -- and in the near-closing moments.
This year there wasn't any really big movement right at the end (the Swedish Academy managed to keep the winner's name secret until the end), but in past years there has been. But this year there clearly was some leakage early on, regarding the shortlist of final authors -- I suspected Mo Yan was a finalist (but doubted his chances of getting the prize because this was the first year that his name really came up in the Nobel context, and they make a point of saying they avoid giving the award to first-time shortlisted authors), and it wouldn't surprise me to learn, fifty years from now (when they open the archives) that other new names listed at the start at suspiciously low odds -- such as Dacia Maraini -- were also on the final list.
Still, the betting action was pretty feeble this year -- with no public pronouncements from Magnus Puke, who always seemed to have a good handle on things in previous years. Ladbrokes didn't keep adding new names, which was a shame (I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the finalists wasn't even on their final list), and there weren't nearly as many names with much movement as usual (and many whose odds did change were predictable local favorites -- Trevor, Banville).
Sure, Betsson livened things up by installing Joyce Carol Oates of all people as the absolute favorite -- but really, Ladbrokes remains the leader in the field (though Unibet showed they're worth paying attention to by already bringing up Mo Yan last year, and installing him as an early favorite, before Ladbrokes even had their odds up (and leading Ladbrokes to follow suit)).
Obviously, too much attention is placed on the names and odds at Ladbrokes and other betting shops -- these dominated pre-Nobel discussion (and led to many worthy names being left out of the discussion ...) -- but they certainly can't be dismissed either. They're just useful tea leaves that must be read and handled with some care.
So, for example:
- Laura Miller thinks it's time to 'Quit saying the Nobel Prize should go to Philip Roth or Bob Dylan', arguing In praise of Nobel obscurity at Salon
- In The Guardian Jason Farago reports on The gripes of Roth: US incredulity at not winning the Nobel literature prize
- And in The New Republic Chloe Schama tries to make a case for Why Nobel Prize Oddsmakers are Usually So Wrong
Sure, the betting lists and odds must be taken with a massive grain of salt, but what seems clear now is that they are of particular value right when they first go up -- when the odds are set by the bookies, and not by who places money on them (leading to absurd distortions such as Bob Dylan suddenly counting as a favorite) -- and in the near-closing moments.
This year there wasn't any really big movement right at the end (the Swedish Academy managed to keep the winner's name secret until the end), but in past years there has been. But this year there clearly was some leakage early on, regarding the shortlist of final authors -- I suspected Mo Yan was a finalist (but doubted his chances of getting the prize because this was the first year that his name really came up in the Nobel context, and they make a point of saying they avoid giving the award to first-time shortlisted authors), and it wouldn't surprise me to learn, fifty years from now (when they open the archives) that other new names listed at the start at suspiciously low odds -- such as Dacia Maraini -- were also on the final list.
Still, the betting action was pretty feeble this year -- with no public pronouncements from Magnus Puke, who always seemed to have a good handle on things in previous years. Ladbrokes didn't keep adding new names, which was a shame (I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the finalists wasn't even on their final list), and there weren't nearly as many names with much movement as usual (and many whose odds did change were predictable local favorites -- Trevor, Banville).
Sure, Betsson livened things up by installing Joyce Carol Oates of all people as the absolute favorite -- but really, Ladbrokes remains the leader in the field (though Unibet showed they're worth paying attention to by already bringing up Mo Yan last year, and installing him as an early favorite, before Ladbrokes even had their odds up (and leading Ladbrokes to follow suit)).
Obviously, too much attention is placed on the names and odds at Ladbrokes and other betting shops -- these dominated pre-Nobel discussion (and led to many worthy names being left out of the discussion ...) -- but they certainly can't be dismissed either. They're just useful tea leaves that must be read and handled with some care.