mrjones1975

You'd specify a name. The bet isn't calculated on 'your mate', it's calculated on 'John Smith' being 'x'. You can bet on anyone being anything, within reason, it's simply a risk calculation by the oddsmaker. In certain cases, you may need to specify a DOB for the person in question, (for example, a particularly common name might not be the person you meant, although you could still say that a person with the name of x would become y.

It's important to note that most odds are calculated not necessarily on probability but also on the amount of money laid.

For example, England are always better odds in the UK to win the World Cup than they would be abroad, because more people in England bet on them out of loyalty. The oddsmakers then calculate the odds based on their exposed risk based against what money they've laid off against that bet winning to cover their potential loss.

For example, if you place a bet of £1 on something at 10/1, I will reduce the odds so that the next person will have to take 9/1. I continue to shorten the odds until no-one is betting, raise it, and that's my optimum price. In the meantime, I try to find another oddsmaker who thinks that this team is less likely to win, (e.g. 20/1), and I bet £0.50. If you win, you get £10, but so do I. If you are wrong, I win £0.50.

This is also the reason why two team events don't have opposing odds - for example, if a boxer is 2/1, then the other boxer would be 1/3, so that whoever wins, the oddsmaker does.

(the initial odds are based on complex statistical models developed over years of historical data).

An interesting occasion where this failed is when a semi-famous 'tipster' bet against an English team playing in a fairly irrelevant European trophy. The oddsmaker (in Switzerland, iirc), had the English team as strong favourites, due to their pedigree and the opposing teams lack thereof. However, the tipster was aware tha the English team had no interest in winning the game and was going to field a weakened team. They subsequently lost, and he won. In modern times, this incidence is less likely, but ultimately oddsmakers base their information on factual data and discount, to some extent, other potential influences.

The laundering doesn't relate to coins to notes.

Generally, money laundering related to any money acquired through illegal means, (e.g. theft/drugs/whatever), which is then spent on something that can then provide legal returns. Bettign is good because it's a cash business and gambling gains aren't additionally taxable beyond the initial tax on the payout.

Not sure why the coins had any relevance - in the example OP gave, the guy working in the bar could equally have easily have swapped the coins in his place of work to notes, and then spent those instead.

Laundering actually only works if you then want to 'cash in' the money legally - people who are asking for their returns in cash are simply trying to keep their money out of the system. That's not laundering, that's just tax evasion.

Not really. No-one is going into a normally bookies and making bets where they can win a million, so it's kind of moot.

(to put it into context, assuming even money bets, if you bet £1, you'd need to guess about 20 results correctly - without getting one wrong)

The times where people might be winning that sort of money is when they're laying £1m or more on a particular race, but then the odds are likely to be shorter than even, meaning even then the winnings aren't more than the £1m limit.

(of course, I'm sure there is an exception somewhere, but my google fu has failed me)

No, I get your point. It might confuse people though. Makes me laugh imagining a guy dropping £1000 in pound coins though...

;-)