2016 L.A. Open (Northern Trust) Discussion Thread

[iacas]

1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

Check any betting site you want.

No need. I and everyone I've ever talked with understands it the way I do.

[No Mulligans]

Just now, iacas said:

No need. I and everyone I've ever talked with understands it the way I do.

You got to be kidding.  In spite of overwhelming evidence just provided you still insist you're right.

[iacas]

They've even used the term the way I did on Morning Drive and "Live From…" shows. Sometimes they'll give you a few people, like "Rory+Jordan or the field" and then the commentators will say "I think Jason Day and Rickie Fowler have good chances, so I'm taking the field."

1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

You got to be kidding.  In spite of overwhelming evidence just provided you still insist you're right.

I'm not kidding, but cool the incredulity. I posed the question the way I've heard it given hundreds of times.

http://www.vegaswatch.org/2008/04/tiger-vs-field.html - makes no mention of not choosing other top-ranked players. It's literally Tiger versus anyone else in the field.

http://www.betus.com.pa/sports-betting/golf/articles/pga-betting-tiger-vs-the-field/ - says "the best player" meaning everyone else is in the field.

http://blog.nola.com/finney/2009/06/numbers_favoring_tiger_woods_v.html - similar. Doesn't mention anything but Tiger and other players.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2007/02/20/42509-gimino-tiger-or-the-field/ - clearly implies that it's Tiger versus everyone else (63 other players in the Match Play).

I asked a professional gambler what "the field" means when you're posed "Jordan or the field" and he said "means anyone other than Jordan." I asked him about the "listed odds" and he said "in this case the only player with listed odds is Jordan."

Which may be the point of distinction… I didn't list several players with various odds, I only listed one player. So, every other player that doesn't have odds (i.e. everyone but Jordan) is "the field." Viewed that way, we're both right.

[No Mulligans]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

I asked a professional gambler what "the field" means when you're posed "Jordan or the field" and he said "means anyone other than Jordan." I asked him about the "listed odds" and he said "in this case the only player with listed odds is Jordan."

Which may be the point of distinction… I didn't list several players with various odds, I only listed one player. So, every other player that doesn't have odds (i.e. everyone but Jordan) is "the field." Viewed that way, we're both right.

That's it.  I was thinking of sport betting sites and Vegas and how I've actually seen the field bets.  Never have I seen just one player listed with odds and the field has always been those without listed odds.  So, I have no disagreement with the above.

I'd take the field as you are defining it but you'd never get this bet at 2 to 1.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

You'd never get this bet for 2 to 1.

Vegas would take action on Jordan at 2:1 all day!

They wouldn't take the field bet at 2:1 or 1:2, no.

[pumaAttack]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

No need. I and everyone I've ever talked with understands it the way I do.

Edit, depends on the exact terms used.  Usually means people without their own odds.

Edited February 19, 2016 by pumaAttack

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Edit, depends on the exact terms used.  Usually means people without their own odds.

Exactly.  And when Erik started the thread he only listed odds for Jordan, hence the group of people without their own odds is everybody else.

Based on what I just saw it looks like all who took the field can get paid now.  Jordan had a really really bad day.

[pumaAttack]

35 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Exactly.  And when Erik started the thread he only listed odds for Jordan, hence the group of people without their own odds is everybody else.

Based on what I just saw it looks like all who took the field can get paid now.  Jordan had a really really bad day.

Yeah, there is usually at least 5 to 10 golfers with their own odds but since he only listed Jordan then the field is everybody else.

Are you counting Jordan out?!

[Golfingdad]

5 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Yeah, there is usually at least 5 to 10 golfers with their own odds but since he only listed Jordan then the field is everybody else.

Are you counting Jordan out?!

Yes. :)

[nevets88]

Doggone it, shoulda bet. Shoulda bet!

[pumaAttack]

11 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes. :)

Yikes!

Last I saw he was 2 over... I had no idea he finished plus 8.

[pumaAttack]

Jordan has it to 4 over.  Don't count him out yet!!

[nevets88]

I don't think Spieth's going make the cut. Wonder what the odds on that was. Shoulda bet! 

And I'll keep kicking this point to death. Woods' consecutive cut streak is mind numbing.

 

[nevets88]

Now this, is a great photo.

 

[RandallT]

 

 

[nevets88]

Adam Scott sporting the black jogger pants.

[jgreen85]

Why do the golf announcers brag so much about this private golf course? It makes sense to gush over Pebble b/c it could encourage more people to drop $500 to play it. The TV audience does not have that option for Riviera. Do the rich members of Riviera get their jollies off listening to this? Does this annoy any one else? 

[nevets88]

So according to CBS's Trackman, Watson just hit a driver with a 136ft apex, naturally, it was a fade, but not an extreme slice and it went over 300. That's 14 feet short of 50 yards. Is that as high as it gets?

It would be cool if CBS displayed face, path, aoa too, but probably too much info for the average spectator to handle. Overall, the three radar numbers it's showing is a big plus.