Betting Odds Are Research For Lazy Journalists
“TRIUMPH for Day-Lewis but Baftas defy bookies,” announces the Guardian’s front page.
The bookmaker’s odds are the lazy reporter’s barometer of shock and sensation.
No need for a newspaper to make a decision and engage in actual research when they can just say Pete Doherty is a generous 1,000 to win the London marathon.
The odds are displayed as if to reflect popular sentiment. But this is only true if there is a market for the bet. You need someone to offer the odds and take the bet. And only a nutter or someone who misunderstands the nature of what speed is would back Pete Doherty to win a 26-plus mile long running race. The odds are less important than the amount of money wagered.
It is of course PR, the reporter being fed a bit of fact by the bookmakers – Daniel Day’s a 33-1 outsider for the cinematography gong, and I’d take it with a treble on Jan Archibald and Didier Lavergne (evens) to get the best make-up and hair prize, and felt to be discovered on Mars (230-1).
Have any of you ever met a punter who has placed a bet on the Baftas? Have you never meet anyone who uses their phone cards and shakes off the effects of prescription drugs long enough to vote on a Daily Express phone poll?
What are the odds on doing so..?
