The odds are low
James Hogg
whether GM will be able to do anything to save SAAB. She said the odds
were very low, but she said it with a sad, pessimistic voice, suggesting
to me that: (1) the chances are very low; (2) the odds are very high;
(3) she's not a gambling woman.
--
James
Donna Richoux
In ordinary (US?) English, "the odds are low" means "it is unlikely,"
same as "chances." So she was just speaking like everybody else she
knows.
Some Google examples:
- the odds are low that the death penalty will ever be carried out.
- The odds are low that your tax return will be picked for an IRS audit.
- The odds are low that anyone will ever recognize her talent.
These things always depend on how you formulate them. Your odds *of*
winning the lottery are low. The odds *against* winning the lottery are
high. I suppose you are telling us that professional gamblers always
state odds against? That sounds dimly familiar.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
franzi
if they are short or long, you also have to say if they are in favour
(for, or on) or against. In short, high and low are the wrong
dimension.
James Hogg
This may be a pondian thing, or an old-fashioned usage, but I find
examples of "low odds" at Google Books, such as this one from 1857:
"Her defeat was a great surprise to many, numerous bets having been
taken at very low odds that she would carry off the first prize."
In old gambling parlance, then, low odds meant a high chance of winning.
Maybe it still means that somewhere. I'm not a gambling man.
--
James
Steve Hayes
>This may be a pondian thing, or an old-fashioned usage, but I find
>examples of "low odds" at Google Books, such as this one from 1857:
>
>"Her defeat was a great surprise to many, numerous bets having been
>taken at very low odds that she would carry off the first prize."
>
>In old gambling parlance, then, low odds meant a high chance of winning.
>Maybe it still means that somewhere. I'm not a gambling man.
Similar confusion seems to exist about "large scale" and "small scale" maps.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
R H Draney
>
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:53:26 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This may be a pondian thing, or an old-fashioned usage, but I find
>>examples of "low odds" at Google Books, such as this one from 1857:
>>
>>"Her defeat was a great surprise to many, numerous bets having been
>>taken at very low odds that she would carry off the first prize."
>>
>>In old gambling parlance, then, low odds meant a high chance of winning.
>>Maybe it still means that somewhere. I'm not a gambling man.
>
>Similar confusion seems to exist about "large scale" and "small scale" maps.
And "steep" vs "shallow" learning curves....
(Is that our left or their left?)....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
franzi
on randomness, like tossing a coin or throwing a die or drawing a
ticket with a number ending in a zero or five, where the probability
of a successful outcome can be calculated accurately. In racing, the
odds and the probability don't match so well at the punter's end,
though the bookmaker tries to balance his book by setting odds, and
laying off, to cover his position whatever the outcome of the race.
Probability is still expressed as high or low, and a high probability
of a given horse winning should be reflected by short odds offered by
the bookmaker, and a low probability by long odds. This does depend on
there being a reasonably efficient market, though, to induce punters
to bet on the likely winner.
Odds is often used to mean probability in general speech though.
--
franzi
Richard Chambers
This is a case where we need to define our terms.
The interpretation of "odds" depends upon whether you look at it from the
point of view of the mathematician, the gambler, or the bookmaker (BrE =
person who makes his living by accepting bets. Is this the same word in
AmE?).
From the mathematician's viewpoint, "odds" is related to, but not identical
to, "probability". Suppose the probability of occurrence of a particular
event is 25%. Subsequent events will prove to be a "Yes" in 1 case out of 4,
and a "No" in 3 cases out of 4. The odds for the event happening is then the
ratio of "Yes" to "No".
Thus, for a probability of 25%, the odds for the occurrence of the event is
1:3. The odds against the occurrence is 3:1.
Suppose I place a bet with a non-profit-making bookmaker (an absurdly
theoretical concept, I well realise). Suppose the probability of James's
Gold winning the 3:30 is generally agreed to be 25%. The bookmaker would
then believe that the odds for the horse winning the race are 1:3.
Conforming to his status as a non-profit-making bookie, he would offer me
odds of 3:1, equivalent to the "odds against". I would place my money on the
horse (to win) by paying the bookmaker �10. If the horse wins, I shall get
my original stake of �10 back, plus �30 from the bookmaker's purse. If the
horse loses, I lose my �10. Over many such bets, the bookie will be
non-profit-making.
What the original quoted speaker meant was that "the odds for" are low. She
could equally well have said "the probability" is low, with inconsequential
damage restricted to the hyper-fine meaning of what she said.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Stan Brown
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com>:
I agree that "the chances are very low" would be a better way to say
it. But I don't think your correction 92) is actually correct. the
odds may be high *against* saving SAAB, but if that's true then the
odd *of* saving SAAB are low.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...