Comments on: Betting Site Pulls American Idol Odds After Judges Save Rule

By: CRB

CRB — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:42 +0000

The odds makers could care less if the games are rigged. It is all about the skim.

By: gingerly

gingerly — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:29:45 +0000

While I think it’s silly for them to stop, I kinda like it. We vote for who we vote for due to many reasons. I’ve honestly never seen anybody who left before top four that the judges should have saved who really didn’t deserve to leave.
Basically their only two that they mentioned who qualify were Michael and Jennifer. I think both left at the right time. Michael insisted on doing horribly karaoke rock songs. For me (and I guess for most of America) he only really shone on IARBIAW. Jennifer wasn’t ready IMO. I just can’t see that either would have gotten much further than they did. I don’t think they would have saved Jennifer because they didn’t have a crystal ball to see what she would go on to accomplish. They might have saved Michael but I honestly can’t see that he would have gotten all that much further based on the fact that after the most praise he had gotten, he went on to do another meh karaoke rock performance.

By: hicksaholic

hicksaholic — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:06:33 +0000

I wonder what would have happened in Season Five if Daughtry was saved or would he have been too far along to save? I often wondered if TPTB really wanted him off the show to begin planning his future but I guess there wasn’t that much time that they would have bought.

By: Hazehel

Hazehel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:04:21 +0000

With the new ruleÃƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ ¦early betters would be putting inordinate amounts of money on someone because they have the idea that he/she would be saved and have a second chance. This then upsets the applecart and makes the odds skewed to the betters favor.

I don’t see how this makes any difference. The bookmakers would simply adjust the odds when it is clear to everyone who the favorites are by (even before) the semi-finals.

WhatÃƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s funny is that they think itÃƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s a Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…â€œDemocraticÃƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ contest.

Well, to be fair, it is a “democratic” process” of sorts. Last year it was quite clear that David Archuleta was the chosen one, and the comments by the judges on the final 2 night was nothing but an attempt to push the voting in David Archuleta’s favour (even if, and I’d admit that, David Archuleta was the better performer on the night). That the result turned out to be different from what’s expected showed that it is people’s votes that counts.

By: bean99

bean99 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:33:11 +0000

I think it may have hurt DC because Michael would very likely had a strong week the next one also and the longer he was around the more it would split David’s base. I doubt it would have affected the outcome though so betting wouldn’t have changed other than maybe odds in a given week.

By: Hazehel

Hazehel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:17:59 +0000

Just playing what-if here, but I’m wondering if there is any reversal of shock boot in any past year that can change the result of who won at the end? There aren’t many shock boots from past years who would benefit from this new rule (I can only think of Michael Johns and Jennifer Hudson, but Constantine perhaps?), would it change the results?

If, let’s say, Michael Johns were to be saved last year, he’ll still be eliminated by Top 5 at the latest by my reckoning, but would it affect David Cook’s votes, say? I don’t think it would because the next week was one of David Cook strongest nights (if iTunes sales is any judge, “Always Be My Baby” would be one of his top 2 songs), and he became firmly entrenched as the top guy after that. Perhaps Carly might have been eliminated earlier instead of him.

But Jennifer Hudson’s year? There were too many divas for all of them to survive into the Top 5, so it’s a toss-up as to who would get voted off, and perhaps the result might have been different. (I still think LaToya is the best of the three and she should have won.)

By: Tess

Tess — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:17:16 +0000

A very simplified version of bookmaking: You can bet anytime during the process. The odds will change depending on how the contestants rank at any given time in relation to one another. (based on how much is bet for whom) So I could put money down on the same contestant every week (but would only be paid if they won the whole thing) and I would have different odds for each time I bet. If you bet early on when there are say 10 contestants and you pick the winner your winnings will be higher than if you bet when there are only 2 contestants because the odds would be lower.

With the new rule…early betters would be putting inordinate amounts of money on someone because they have the idea that he/she would be saved and have a second chance. This then upsets the applecart and makes the odds skewed to the betters favor. Bookmaking is a “made for profit” venture and they have to be sure that the betting is distributed among the many early on.

By: bean99

bean99 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:01:22 +0000

I can’t find it in myself to get upset that a betting site is suspending betting on AI. What’s funny is that they think it’s a “Democratic” contest. :laugh_tb:

By: itsalleternal

itsalleternal — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:55:14 +0000

It has been manipulated since Season 1. They are just making it clearer now.

By: jimmyboyd2

jimmyboyd2 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:41:51 +0000

Of course, that’s not the real reason. Even the casual viewer knows it’s Adam and Danny all the way. They’re not getting enough money on the others to make it profitable. At least that’s what I suspect.

By: Hazehel

Hazehel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:15:06 +0000

So are they only betting on who the winner of American Idol will be and not just on who gets the boot each week? I gather the betting sites used to bet on who gets the boot, have they stopped doing that now or has DialIdol killed that kind of betting?

Still doesn’t make any sense because it won’t change anything except giving a slight advantage to only a few of the early favorites (which no doubt can be factored in when calculating the odds). So what’s the real reason?

By: t2

t2 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:54:59 +0000

Awww, those betting sites are so cute. I bet they even believe that the contestants that Ryan calls to “center stage” really are the bottom three too….

The whole “we’re stopping the betting because of the new rule” is stupid, (and most likely a cover that the betting site knows something funny is going on) because at the end of the day, America still supposedly votes people out after top 5.

So my suspicion is either something funny is going on or everyone already knows it’s gonna be !!Gokey!! and Lambert in the finale with a Lambert win so the betting site isn’t making any money.

Oh yeah, if they’ve suspended betting, are the giving everyone who has already bet their money back?

By: Hazehel

Hazehel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:55:16 +0000

This is stupid. The show always announce who the lowest vote-getters are, they must do it for the judges to decide if they want to save a contestant. That the judges might save the lowest vote-getter from being booted won’t change the public votes, so what’s wrong with betting on who gets the lowest number of votes instead of who gets the boot?

Something tells me they are not giving the real reason for this decision (sites like DialIdol are making the betting unprofitable?) or they are as stupid as they appear.

By: E

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:19:27 +0000

ha MJ I agree.

I just had a thought. maybe if by top 5 there’s still no shocking result, then the judges will use the new rule, so the week after 2 people get voted off and those remaining will go straight to top 3, more suspense.

eta: is the new rule applicable up to top 5, forgot up to what point.