Neat idea. One thing I have to wonder about is "editing" of reality shows in this context. Again, fundamentals, but could be worth thinking about. For example on Survivor, there will be an 'explanation' phase, where they look into what caused a team to lose and who might be in trouble, and then there will be a 'mislead' where they establish another possibility whether there is one or not, if they can come up with something, and often you can read that it is fake.
In the case of Idol, the order of people on stage seems (I've only watched one results show so far, so I could be wrong) to be important. So does who is in each group of people. Amy proved that you don't HAVE to knock out one of those in the group, but it's probably more likely than random chance would indicate, and they probably tend to give the exit late in the process and proceed in a certain order based on the line, plus you know that certain people are safe (market is at 0 or 100) so them being there means at some point they have to go through them and confirm their status.
In general, the fact that someone on stage knows the result, and isn't the world's greatest actor (shall we say), plus the fact that the choices and editing that they use are designed for the public and not to be sufficiently random to hide information from gamblers. This would be the next level up from Dial Idol, in terms of using show biz info against them.
The issue with betting on favorites vs. betting against dogs is that the markets are not going to add up properly. In general, people don't bet against, they bet for. There was one instance in the Kentucky Derby where you could literally hit Pinnacle's no side on every horse if you could confirm they would all start - you're much more likely to bet +2000 on Long Shot than lay -2400 against Won't Ever Win. In general, favorites are priced reasonably well and underdogs are underpriced. Imagine being able to lay odds against the bad teams in March Madness...
|