Liverpool 4.41
Aston Villa 16.66
Now everything looks fair, much more adequate than a week earlier when City’s odds were 1.25, and even a little earlier 1.1 (by the way, isn’t this a record-breaking drop in outrights?).
Both of these two odds looks like a proper odds to bet on outright bet for the remaining months. Liverpool has a good chance obviously to win the EPL but Aston Villa might be the dark horse this season just like Girona on La Liga. Putting small amount on Aston Villa might not seems like a bad idea after all and 3/4 of their next fixtures seems like games that they could win easily
~
Why did you miss Arsenal? Is 3.92 too low or do you consider them historical losers?
In general, yes, they have long been something like Tottenham, zero trophies for many years, but I see the logic in the fact that every season they are getting better and if this season they take the title, then in my opinion it will be mega logical and consistent. If we talk about losers, then Liverpool have good experience in this - they have lost the title “at the finish line” many times. Overall, I trust the bookmakers here and I think Arsenal's title is more likely than Liverpool's.
By the way, it is no longer possible to bet on the Girona title with good odds - after they beat Barcelona, the bookmakers sharply changed their opinion and now the quote is 5.88 (and before the game it was 20+ lol).
Yes, this is a wonderful experiment, but now the situation has become sharply opposite: a crowd of lagging behind easily makes all-in bets to catch up with the leaders (who seem to be playing reliably), but since there are many lagging behind (and their total chances are high), this provokes the leaders too take more risks. In general, we'll see how it all ends, but I can assume that the volatility here will be too great to talk about a serious competition.
We need to come up with something in between. For example, so that the one who goes against the opinion of 90% of the participants receives more points (we need to come up with some kind of proportion for different ratios). It's too unfair when 15 people get 3 points for an accurate score of 2-1, and someone gets 3 points for a score of 4-0.
I understand that this is all difficult to implement (especially manual counting - this should be avoided), I’m just speculating.
Yeah, that was an unexpected outcome -- but I guess it's even better that now people are forced to risk, while at the same time, leaders are enticed to keep up, but I suspect the "slow and steady" will have a few winners come the end.
It gets even better once game selections dry up too!
I definitely like that concept of rarity bonus, weighted points for unpopular picks. It's all possible with formula but just the amount of work -- and requiring more careful submissions from 50+ people, that extra effort is nice but few estimate how much work it requires. Also, the issue of objectivity, might need organiser to NOT participate.
The effort required to conduct an “ideal” (and even ordinary) competition is truly enormous, so I specifically highlighted this point. But technical implementation is one thing (I still believe that everything should be automated in order to avoid subjective issues and be humane towards the organizers), but the format of the competition itself is another. It would be interesting to first come up with an “ideal” format, then you could think about how to implement it technically. I hope other participants will also suggest some ideas for improving the polls.