On the whole, wagering money on literary awards is a mug's game -- 'novelty bets' indeed.
Yes, reading the Nobel-betting-leaves (see my most recent mention) is about the best one can do with that prize, in the absence of any other clues (there are no Nobel long- or shortlists, nor is the list of candidates being considered made public) -- and, in fact, the betting lists and shifts in odds have signaled who might be getting the prize in the past, but basically (and especially given the large number of folks who wager on Bob Dylan) the betting shops are just taking the punters' money with this one.
Where at least the pool of final candidates is known -- such as now, with the Man Booker Prize, where a longlist of 13 finalists has been announced -- punters might believe the odds are a bit more in their favor -- and if you have a real good sense of the judges' likes and dislikes maybe you can make a real good guess. But if you're going to wager on the outcome you have to consider the odds -- and at this point Ladbrokes, at least, has stacked the deck so far out of your favor that it's even harder to take seriously than usual.
As of 31 July the Ladbrokes odds on offer for the Man Booker were as follows:
There are 13 possible winners -- but for not a one of them can you get longer than 12/1 odds (and only one for longer than 10/1).
That is probabilistically, mathematically, and common-sensically an impossibility and absurdity. Indeed, I'd be astonished if it were legal.
(Do I need to explain this ? If there are 13 titles to bet on and each stood an equal chance of winning, then they should all have odds of 13/1 (or at least very, very close to it, to account for the bookies' cut). Obviously some are considered to have a better chance of winning than others, and those have better odds -- as high as 4/1 here. But if some are considered to have a better (than 13/1) chance of winning, then other must have worse odds than 13/1. How many titles, and how bad odds isn't clear, but there have to be some (yes, there likely have to be several). If you don't believe me, check out your local horse racing form: you'll find in any race that, where n is the number of horses entered, more than one longshot will be running at worse than n/1 odds. In absolutely every last race.)
Of course, if you're actually putting money on the Man Booker (and I would strongly counsel against it), then you should shop around. Paddy Power's odds aren't better for all the titles, but they at least offer three titles with longer than 13/1 odds (and eight at 10/1 or worse -- double the number at Ladbrokes), while Bet Victor's odds only give you one longer-than-13/1 opportunity (but offer you 6/1 for the Catton -- a considerably better payoff than you can get for the favorite at Ladbrokes).
Where at least the pool of final candidates is known -- such as now, with the Man Booker Prize, where a longlist of 13 finalists has been announced -- punters might believe the odds are a bit more in their favor -- and if you have a real good sense of the judges' likes and dislikes maybe you can make a real good guess. But if you're going to wager on the outcome you have to consider the odds -- and at this point Ladbrokes, at least, has stacked the deck so far out of your favor that it's even harder to take seriously than usual.
As of 31 July the Ladbrokes odds on offer for the Man Booker were as follows:
- 4/1: The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton
- 9/2: Harvest by Jim Crace
- 6/1: Spinning Heart by Donal Ryan
- 13/2: Unexploded by Alison MacLeod
- 7/1: The Testament of Mary by Colm Toíbín
- 7/1: TransAtlantic by Colum McCann
- 8/1: A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki
- 8/1: The Kills by Richard House
- 9/1: Almost English by Charlottle Mendelson
- 10/1: Five Star Billionaire by Tash Aw
- 10/1: We Needs New Names by NoViolet Bulawayo
- 10/1: The Lowland by Jhumpa Lahiri
- 12/1: The Marrying of Chani Kaufman by Eve Harris
There are 13 possible winners -- but for not a one of them can you get longer than 12/1 odds (and only one for longer than 10/1).
That is probabilistically, mathematically, and common-sensically an impossibility and absurdity. Indeed, I'd be astonished if it were legal.
(Do I need to explain this ? If there are 13 titles to bet on and each stood an equal chance of winning, then they should all have odds of 13/1 (or at least very, very close to it, to account for the bookies' cut). Obviously some are considered to have a better chance of winning than others, and those have better odds -- as high as 4/1 here. But if some are considered to have a better (than 13/1) chance of winning, then other must have worse odds than 13/1. How many titles, and how bad odds isn't clear, but there have to be some (yes, there likely have to be several). If you don't believe me, check out your local horse racing form: you'll find in any race that, where n is the number of horses entered, more than one longshot will be running at worse than n/1 odds. In absolutely every last race.)
Of course, if you're actually putting money on the Man Booker (and I would strongly counsel against it), then you should shop around. Paddy Power's odds aren't better for all the titles, but they at least offer three titles with longer than 13/1 odds (and eight at 10/1 or worse -- double the number at Ladbrokes), while Bet Victor's odds only give you one longer-than-13/1 opportunity (but offer you 6/1 for the Catton -- a considerably better payoff than you can get for the favorite at Ladbrokes).