golfrewind.com

Mickelson 11/1
Furyk 15/1
Goosen 28/1
A. Scott 28/1
Sergio 30/1
Donald 30/1
G.Ogilvy 38/1
DiMarco 45/1
Harrington 45/1
Weir 52/1
Ames 66/1
Olazabal 70/1
Monty 70/1
M.campbell 100/1
Pampling 100/1

Tiger 7/5 ($5 gets you $7)- ouch.

Seems that several of these are worth a few bucks. What do you think?

already had my bets.
of the ones listed, i got 80 on Olazabal, but he's on offer at 100s in some bookies, 70s is an ok bet though.
i got 100s on Michael Campbell too, very good bet, if he was finishing tournaments off better this year that would be a deadly bet.
got 33s on Sergio, but there isn't really any value on bets with Sergio.
Goosen is a good bet but too short of a price to get my attention.
best ive seen on Tiger is 7/4, wouldn't touch him unless your willing to gamble a good amount (or you may just have $10 to add a bit of excitement). 7/4 is too short for anyone in a full (high quality) field of golfers, even if it is Tiger woods.

Interesting only four Americans! in that group. but they rank 1,2,3,8.

The short odds on Woods are purely an effort to attract some money on other competitors.

15/1 for Furyk is about right, I think 66/1 for Ames is a decent bet, and Weir has been getting into some good positions - the odds on those two might attract some each way action.

I like the Furyk and Donald odds. Donald lives in Chicago and plays Medinah alot.

Out of the whole list, I quickly chose the players I thought would raise some eyebrows on their odds. Here's some more :

Els 15/1
Vijay 17/1
Immelman 50/1
Appleby 50/1
Cink 50/1
Cabrera 85/1
Bjorn 90/1
Westwood 100/1
Casey 100/1

Bjorn is a good bet, i havent looked at his odds anywhere else, but 90s is decent. i got 80's on Cink, that is good bet i feel.

Although Luke went to Northwestern U. here, next to Chicago, and used to live here, I don't think it's going to help him much against this field. I know he's played Medinah alot, but many tour pros have played here.

london, if you think that's bad, you haven't seen the odds for the 2000 Open Championship right after he won the U.S. Open by 15 shots. It was something worse than Even if I remember right (1/2 sounds somewhat familiar). It might have been worse than that even.

i don't think its bad just very short, i dont often look at the odds of Tiger woods (and cannot remember his odds for the 2000 Open), but know he is normally around 3's (thats after a rest), coming off of a couple of wins 7/4 or shorter is expected but still very short.

if i thought he was going to win i may be saying something different, but even if i was 99% sure of him winning, i still wouldn't wanna take less than 7/2. but thats just me.

Oh I completely agree. Just because it's almost a lock for him to win like the 2000 or 2005 Open Championships, it doesn't mean it's a good bet. I'd rather take a dark horse type guy who ends up top 5 or something. Tiger is not a moneymaker for the average betting person.

you're very confident, that your fella will come through this week with an easy victory, aint you?
7/4 is very short, ive had (near) dead cert's at better prices in races with 7 horses, Tiger certainly isn't a dead cert when there is 150+ people in the field. what do i know though? are you calling me an average betting person or just anyone in general?

Where did I say I was very confident in him winning? That's NOT what I meant. Reading comprehension is a good thing. I'm simply saying that Tiger having lower odds means you do not win as much if he wins or even if he has a high finish. I would rather bet money on someone who has 15-1 or worse odds so that I could make more money on it. That's all I'm saying. It has nothing to do with my own confidence in Tiger at all. You seem to have misunderstood what I was talking about. If I were really confident in Tiger, I would be saying that I'd bet money on him even if it only returns me $1 or $2 per dollar that I bet. I'd much rather make $15 or more on each dollar I invest/bet.

I think you misunderstood when I said "lock." I was NOT referring to the 2006 PGA Championship. I was referring to the 2000 and 2005 Open Championships, two tournaments that most people thought Tiger was a lock to win (and he did, easily both times). I don't think he's a lock at all this week. Nothing is. And I was referring to the average betting person being someone who doesn't spend $1 million or something. If you're not dropping a ton of cash on Tiger, then he will NOT make much money for you even if he wins. His odds are too low at pretty much every tournament for it to be worth betting on him in my opinion.

ok, i probably wanted to misread it, after replying to our differences (although there really the same, just a different perspective and words) on the other thread.

Yes, I did not mean that he's a lock to win this. I was simply referring to the 2000 and 2005 Open's as examples of tourneys where a lot of folks considered him a lock. He is not a lock this week by any stretch in my opinion. And as I said before, regardless of whether he wins, he's not a good moneymaker unless you REALLY put down a lot of cash on him. If he's got 2-1 odds and you put down a ton of cash, then it works great. But if you're only betting $50 or something then it's not worth it in my opinion.