The Betfair Prof / Leighton Vaughan Williams / 27 January 2009 /

Is this the lesson of the latest reality show upset? The Betfair Prof talks Celebrity Big Brother...

I didn't watch a minute of Celebrity Big Brother so know no more about the persona and antics of Verne Troyer than was reflected in the betting odds. On that basis, I guessed that Verne had it in the bag. I know a bit more about the persona and antics of Ulrika Jonsson. So a glance at the betting only reassured me in my confidence that the chances of the great British public elevating the former weathergirl to the stay-at-home equivalent of Queen of the jungle were slim to none.

So what happened? In the biggest upset for the markets since glamour model Lucy Pinder was evicted very, very early from the Big Brother house, the blonde Swede stormed to victory over the 2 feet 8 inches high 40-year-old American actor and stunt performer (thank you, Wikipedia!).

If this was a one-off blip we could write it off to the vagaries of chance. After all, even a 20-1 chance can be expected to win one time in 21, if the odds are right. But the number of times the sizzling hot favourite for victory or eviction bites the dust in this sort of competition goes beyond that. I haven't collected and analyzed the data but would hazard a guess that there is what is sometimes called a reverse favourite-longshot bias in the Big Brother house. In other words you'd win more money over the long run by backing the 10 to 1 longshot than the 1 to 10 favourite.

But why? Self-declared betting guru and former Celebrity Big Brother contestant John McCririck apparently attributes the latest upset to the name recognition factor. This is well-known in American politics, where a known name is worth a few zeros on the campaign cheque. Hence the Bush and Kennedy dynasties! It seems, though, that in America name recognition may no longer cut it at the highest level. Witness Caroline Kennedy's failed bid for appointment to the vacant US Senate seat of Hillary Clinton. At the level of British Big Brother, though, he may have a point. After all, didn't someone once say that all publicity is good publicity?

Still, even if true, this doesn't explain why it wasn't factored into the markets.

In the end, maybe it reduces to the famous adage well related in an interview given by cricket correspondent and former Warwickshire stalwart, Jack Bannister. The year, he tells, was 1993 and Warwickshire were in the final of the NatWest Trophy. Deciding he felt like wagering on the outcome, he sought the opinion of the umpires and several players, and every one of them said the wicket was soft, very tricky for batting. Indeed, all agreed that 240 was likely to be the maximum possible score.

Well, Sussex scored 321 and Warwickshire beat that!

He remembers it well because of the heavy loss this caused him in the spread betting markets, a loss which belatedly brought to mind some words spoken to him as a boy by none other than William Hill himself. "Always remember one thing", WH told him, "Never bet on anything that talks!"

Verne Troyer couldn't have put it better himself.

Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams is the Director of the Political Forecasting Unit and Betting Research Unit of Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: