Honestly when sportsbooks gave Liverpool such a low chance to win and the odd was so high, I was a bit confused, after all I thought this is the team that lost only once (to watford!) and why would they lose now? Sure they have a "chance" to lose like in any game but it was over 3.5+ for Liverpool to win the game, it looked like it is nowhere near that impossible for them to win that game and the odd looked weird.
Now that I look at the result, maybe sportsbooks know this thing more than we do
. They actually allowed Liverpool to be that high so that people would find it lucrative and wager on it and they knew that City would be the better team on the pitch. The game ended 4-0, wasn't even close to being competitive and from the first half it was already decided, kudos to all odd providers.
Now that I look at the result, maybe sportsbooks know this thing more than we do
. They actually allowed Liverpool to be that high so that people would find it lucrative and wager on it and they knew that City would be the better team on the pitch. The game ended 4-0, wasn't even close to being competitive and from the first half it was already decided, kudos to all odd providers.The truth is that the sportsbook also get things wrong almost as often as they do get it right, Chelsea won against Man City just a few day before that and they were offered at an even great value, what would you say about that ? Of course the sportsbook probably do get a lot of informations about these games and it's used to determine the odds, but it necessarily doesn't mean it will always affect the result positively.
If you look at logically it is probably always in the odds providers best interest that the underdogs win, then providing odds that would almost certainly decide the winner of any fixture is directly in contradiction to that interest.
.