Well, they have an interest in making sure both sides of their book is balanced, whether or not that reflects the true probability of a team winning is irrelevant.
No.
Does a casino make sure “both sides of the roulette table are balanced”? Of course not, they get paid out on the difference between true odds and the price they pay out for winning bets, even if any individual spin is lopsided. Same with bookies. They don’t chase “both sides” at all. They get their traders to calculate the odds, add a markup and win on overall bets longterm, even if any individual bet is lopsided.
That’s what a book does: it balances, such that winning players get paid, and the book makes money off losing bets.
I like a parimutuel myself. Yes, we know that the operator is taking an enormous slice off the top, but it is an honest slice, fully disclosed. An unregulated bookie—I’m not so sure.
If that were true, offered odds would not change due to lopsided bet inflows, but they do to reduce risk.
Big, big difference between betting on a roulette spin and an athletic competition. The casino doesn’t give a shit whether there’s more money on red or black, or odd or even.
But the bookmaker does. They want equal amounts of money bet on the winner and the loser. That’s why the odds and spreads may change after opening and before the game starts.
But this should probably be a separate discussion.
Back to the games today. Thus far, as has been pointed out upthread, the South American teams have underperformed; indeed, IIRC, no SA team has yet won a game. Argentina will try to break that trend tonight when they play Algeria in Kansas City.
I just want to add, a balanced bettor book has long been the goal, but for a long while now the bookies have been able to identify smart, large bettors (“sharps”) and they will adjust the line once those bets start coming in, so pools often end up unbalanced.
No match until 3PM! I just don’t know what to do with myself.
ETA on France - Senegal: I often wonder if there’s a post-colonial tension in matches like this. I don’t know enough to hazard a guess though.
I’d say there definitely is, but I have no cites, just gut feeling.
As a casual viewer, I have a couple of questions that will come across as very simplistic to the experienced fans here, but please bear with me.
- I saw the last half of the Germany slaughter of Curacao (7-1). Are they really that unstoppable, or is Curacao really that bad? If the latter, how in the world did they even qualify?
- Pick the 4 teams that are most likely to win it all. This way, I know what games to look for.
Oh, an after thought: I know the U.S. is much better than the team that lost to Trinidad & Tobago a few years ago, but are they good enough to make the final 8 or 4?
Curacao is really that bad, Germany is very good (though not as good as German teams used to be).
1- Spain (yes even after tying with Cape Verde, Spain lost their first game in 2010 and went on to win the whole thing).
2 - France (may be #1, seeing Spain’s bad start).
After that there is the traditional Football powers: Brazil, Germany, England, Netherlands.
A dark horse candidate: Japan.
Not likely, but their performance in this championship could make a reassessment necessary
ETA: Have in mind that Football is notoriously and gloriously unpredictable.
Germany is fine, Curacao is bad. They qualified because this is a greatly expanded tournament. Not that shocking a result though, there are usually a couple beatdowns even amongst decently regarded teams - Germany beat Brazil 7-1 previously!
Agree with Frodo on the rest, but I think he left out Argentina to not jinx anything. Spain and France are 1a and 1b with England probably #3 and then the others a bit behind.
As for the US, a lot depends on the knockout draw. They’re likely to be better than the median team in the round of 32, roughly the median team in the round of 16, and an underdog against the median team in the quarters. That doesn’t mean they won’t face some powerhouse that had a shitty group stage and finished 3rd and get knocked out earlier.
Blinks innocently
Thanks for the answers! One more greenhorn question: I know that, during the normal course of events, players from one country can play for teams of other countries simply by signing with them. The World Cup, though, is a battle of nations, so do you have to be from the country you are playing for? The logical answer to me would be yes.
You have be a national for the country you are playing for, and once you play a game or three (I don’t remember the exact rule right now) for a country you cannot then play for another country, even if you have dual nationality.
Curacao are also a North American team qualifying for a tournament where the 3 biggest hitters autoqualified.
On a different note, there have been Scots everywhere in Foxboro, and lots of bagpipes. This morning a bagpiper was playing for the kids as they arrived at school. They are definitely being embraced!
ETA: also, kind of fascinating to watch day-of ticket prices. I see two great seats in the bottom deck, $270/each, less than I paid for Patriots playoff games.
David Squires still has the best football cartoons:
Very good, specially the part about FIFA not quite managing to kill the sport despite their best efforts.
According to Nate Silver, the odds against the USA are about 43-1 currently. So 40-1 is still a bad bet, but much closer to fair than online oddsmakers will usually give you. For instance (all odds approximate, since he expresses it as % chance of winning): Spain is paying 5-1 but should be 7-1, France is paying 4.25-1 but should be 8-1, England is 7.5-1 but should be 10-1, and Portugal is also 7.5-1, but should be 20-1! Holland is slightly less likely to win than the USA but is paying only 16-1. Mexico is 55-1, should be 80-1.
The one big outlier I’m seeing here is Argentina, which is paying 10-1. Silver has them as the overall favorite at only 4-1 against! That might be worth an investment. (spoilered to not tell Frodo the odds 
Even if you don’t buy Silver’s exact numbers, of course, the take-home message is that these lines are set in such a way that most of the bets will greatly advantage the bookmaker, no matter what the results are.
I don’t even know how to bet. Detroit does have 3 casinos. Is it typical for a casino to have a counter or are set aside to place sporting bets?