100 to 8 - Odd Odds?

[bobk2]

[ IANAG - I am not a gambler] In reading about racing and/or gambling in the UK, I’ve heard of odds being given at 100-to-8. Why such an unusal (to me) ratio? Is there really a need for an odd between 12:1 and 13:1? 5:2 could be useful, but 100:8 is surprising.

Is it just a custom? Or maybe have something to do with the old 21:20 currency ratio? (guineas&pounds I think, but not sure)

[ultrafilter]

The odds are what they are. I’m suprised that it wasn’t written as 25:2, though.

[Omniscient]

I’ve got no specific insight here, but a quick google turned up this site:

http://www.paulaura.com/betgloss.htm

**French Odds **
Expression of odds as 100 to 6, 100 to 8, etc. The name goes back to the days when the French had a “metric” money system while UK still used 1 pound of 240 old pence.

Basically it appears to be a relic of an older time. No idea why one site would merge the traditional odds and the archaic ones though.

[RM_Mentock]

@Omniscient

I’ve got no specific insight here, but a quick google turned up this site:

http://www.paulaura.com/betgloss.htm

Basically it appears to be a relic of an older time. No idea why one site would merge the traditional odds and the archaic ones though.

Perhaps it’s called that just because of the zeroes. But 100 to 8 would probably be easier to calulate (times 100, divide by 8) than 25 to 2 (times 25, divide by 2).

[Omniscient]

@RM Mentock

Perhaps it’s called that just because of the zeroes. But 100 to 8 would probably be easier to calulate (times 100, divide by 8) than 25 to 2 (times 25, divide by 2).

I think most people would have alot easier time dividing by 2 than 8, and multiplying by 25 is only slightly harder than by 100. My guess is that the latter would be easier.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I think 100:8 is one of those expressions that has entered the language as a shorthand for long odds.

Eric Idle writes in his The Greedy Bastard Tour:

I was gobsmacked by the news that John Cleese is coming to Chicago to be photographed with me for Vanity Fair. … If I were a betting man I would have given you 100:8 against.

[kniz]

It would most likely be expressed as 12:1 or 13:1 both of which are close enough for betting purposes.

[RM_Mentock]

@Omniscient

multiplying by 25 is only slightly harder than by 100.

you gotta be shitting me. No, wait, you’re omniscient, so OK…

[Quartz]

If these are odds from a bookmaker, then isn’t the rule that odds of n:m gives a probability of m / (n+m)? So odds of 100:8 would not be the same as odds of 25:2.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Quartz

If these are odds from a bookmaker, then isn’t the rule that odds of n:m gives a probability of m / (n+m)? So odds of 100:8 would not be the same as odds of 25:2.

Actually, what it means is a bet of 2 would win 25, which certainly is equivalent to a bet of 8 winning 100.

[RM_Mentock]

@Quartz

If these are odds from a bookmaker, then isn’t the rule that odds of n:m gives a probability of m / (n+m)? So odds of 100:8 would not be the same as odds of 25:2.

?? 100/(8+100) equals 25/(2+25)

[chrisk]

@RM Mentock

?? 100/(8+100) equals 25/(2+25)

Yeah.

100/108 has a common factor of 4, so it can be reduced to its lowest terms of (100/4) / (108/4) or 25/27

Which would seem to suggest, if not prove, that though odds are not the same as fractions, they can be reduced to lowest terms exactly as if they were fractions.

[Peter_Morris]

@Quartz

If these are odds from a bookmaker, then isn’t the rule that odds of n:m gives a probability of m / (n+m)? So odds of 100:8 would not be the same as odds of 25:2.

I think the odds would be (m/n) + n

100:8 means that 8 pounds will win you 100, plus your 8 pounds stake returned
25:2 means that 2 pounds will win you 25 plus your 2 pounds stake returned

which is the same thing.