Jim Furyk or Geoff Ogilvy could upset Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson in golf's U.S. Open

[clevfan]

June 08, 2007

Jeff Haney explains why long shots Jim Furyk or Geoff Ogilvy could upset Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson in golf's U.S. Open

LAS VEGAS SUN

Professional golfers who have been playing the course at Oakmont Country Club in preparation for next week's U.S. Open had a succinct description of the notoriously challenging layout.

It's even more brutal than usual.

"They're saying they would gladly sign a scorecard right now at even par," said Jeff Sherman, leading golf odds- maker and assistant manager of the Las Vegas Hilton sports book.

Sherman will take the tough course into account when he creates his proposition wagers scheduled to be posted early next week for the Open, which begins Thursday in Oakmont, Pa.

Odds to win golf's second major of the year are already available, with Tiger Woods (2-1) and Phil Mickelson (7-1) atop the field.

Among longer shots who could stand out, according to Sherman, are Jim Furyk, who brings a strong track record on rugged courses into the U.S. Open, and defending champion Geoff Ogilvy.

Furyk, who typically goes off at odds of 20-1 or greater to win a tournament, is 15-1, tied with Vijay Singh at the third-shortest price on the board for the U.S. Open.

Ogilvy, who won his first major last year at Winged Foot, is listed at 25-1. Before his victory in 2006, odds in the 40-1 range were commonly attached to Ogilvy.

"We received consistent action on him since he won last year's U.S. Open," Sherman said. "He really became a fan favorite and a favorite with the bettors. People kept betting him in every other major right through this year's Masters."

Sherman expects Mickelson, who is recovering from a wrist injury, to play in the U.S. Open but suspects he might not be 100 percent so won't use him in head-to-head matchups or betting propositions. Sherman briefly raised the odds on Mickelson to 8-1 but received a flurry of bets at that price to drive the odds back down.

Belmont

The defection of Kentucky Derby winner Street Sense took some luster from Saturday's 139th running of the Belmont Stakes, but the addition of top filly Rags to Riches brought some intrigue to race.

Rags to Riches, the Kentucky Oaks champ trained by Todd Pletcher, was installed as the third betting choice in the Belmont morning line at odds of 3-1, behind heavily favored Curlin (6-5) and Derby and Preakness front-runner Hard Spun (5-2).

The short odds on Rags to Riches reflect the filly's racing style and pedigree. She figures to track the leaders from off the pace and make a bid for victory down Belmont's legendary homestretch. She is a half-sister of last year's Belmont winner, Jazil, and her sire is ' 92 Belmont champ A.P. Indy.

Head-to-head horse betting matchups are a popular staple on Triple Crown race days in Las Vegas race books, and Rags to Riches is expected to be paired against Curlin and Hard Spun in individual matchups at casinos that offer such propositions. Also look for matchup s pitting Hard Spun against Curlin , CP West against Tiago and Slews Tizzy against Imawildandcrazyguy.

The three Belmont favorites - as well as the Derby winner - also figure prominently in Breeders' Cup futures in Las Vegas race books. Curlin and Street Sense are each listed at 10-1 to win the Breeders' Cup Classic (Oct. 27, Monmouth Park), with Hard Spun at 50-1, at Wynn Las Vegas. Rags to Riches is an early 3-1 favorite to win the Breeders' Cup Distaff.

French Open

As long as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer make it past their opponents in their semifinal matches scheduled for early this morning, Nadal figures to go off as a solid betting favorite against Federer in the final match of the French Open on Sunday at Roland Garros.

Nadal, trying for his third consecutive French Open championship, was listed as a minus-170 favorite at the Hilton to win the title heading into this morning's matches. Federer, who has won 10 of the past 15 tennis majors but never the French Open, was listed at plus-180.

Their opponents in the semis - Novak Djokovic, who faces Nadal this morning as a big underdog of plus-850, and Nikolay Davydenko, a plus-600 underdog against Federer - were listed as 20-1 long shots before today's matches.

[alysheba88]

Not exactly going out on a limb. Defending champ and a top five player in the world

[Hartley]

Adam Scott right now is the hottest player.

[alysheba88]

Cant putt wont win a major

[Hartley]

Truth of the matter is that golf is probably the one sport where anyone can win (even a major) if they have a good week. Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel and Michael Campbell are proof of that. Zach Johnson hasn't let off much since winning the Masters either.

Guy that looked hot as hell at the beginning of this year and has just gone in the can of late is Charles Howell III.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Truth of the matter is that golf is probably the one sport where anyone can win (even a major) if they have a good week. Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel and Michael Campbell are proof of that. Zach Johnson hasn't let off much since winning the Masters either.

Guy that looked hot as hell at the beginning of this year and has just gone in the can of late is Charles Howell III.

All those guys can putt. Or at least putted great when they won. Crenshaw winning the Masters in his 40's. Everyone remembers the Van De Velde collapse but what people dont remember is the guy made every putt for 4 days.

A guy like DiMarco has competed well in several majors because of putting

Guys like Sergio and Scott are at such a disadvantage because of their putting. VJ should have won twice as many majors as he won.

[uhavegot2b]

Can someone please explain what the golf odds mean, when it is listed as 5/2 or 3.5 or using a whole number such as 9 or 10?

[Hartley]

Perhaps Alysheba but Phil Mickelson may be one of the most inconsistent putters I've seen and he's won a couple of majors. Even one of the worst putters ever (John Daly) won a British Open. I agree with you but any golfer can have a good putting week as well.

[Hartley]

no difference. Many non North American books use decimals while North American books use fractional odds or money lines.

1.5 is the same as 1/2 or -200

Essentially the decimal odds represent the amount you would get back multiplied by your odds. This is the full return including your stake So 1.5 returns $150 on every $100 bet or $50 profit.

Fractional odds are just that so at 1/2 you would win $100 for every $200 bet which of course is the same as 1.5.

when you see a money line it represents how much you would win for every $100 bet if its "+" or how much you have to bet to win $100 if it's "-"

1/5 fractional is 1.2 decimal is -500 money line

5/1 fractional is 6.0 decimal is +500 money line

1/1 fractional is 2.0 decimal is +100 or -100 money line.

Hope that helps

[uhavegot2b]

Originally Posted by Hartley

no difference. Many non North American books use decimals while North American books use fractional odds or money lines.

1.5 is the same as 1/2 or -200

Essentially the decimal odds represent the amount you would get back multiplied by your odds. This is the full return including your stake So 1.5 returns $150 on every $100 bet or $50 profit.

Fractional odds are just that so at 1/2 you would win $100 for every $200 bet which of course is the same as 1.5.

when you see a money line it represents how much you would win for every $100 bet if its "+" or how much you have to bet to win $100 if it's "-"

1/5 fractional is 1.2 decimal is -500 money line

5/1 fractional is 6.0 decimal is +500 money line

1/1 fractional is 2.0 decimal is +100 or -100 money line.

Hope that helps

Yes it does. Thank you.

[indio]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Perhaps Alysheba but Phil Mickelson may be one of the most inconsistent putters I've seen and he's won a couple of majors. Even one of the worst putters ever (John Daly) won a British Open. I agree with you but any golfer can have a good putting week as well.

Uhm, I don't know how a person of your legendary stature can make such a ridiculously dumb comment such as that. John Daly has a reputation of being a very good putter and as recently as 2004 was ranked 5th on the tour in putting.

While granted, sometimes John's mind is elswhere and can lead to the occasional poor display on the greens, he is a very good putter. To call him one of the worst putters ever is really a moronic comment to make.

Can't imagine he will putt too good this week though. Hard to read a line when your worried about getting attacked with a steak knife.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Perhaps Alysheba but Phil Mickelson may be one of the most inconsistent putters I've seen and he's won a couple of majors. Even one of the worst putters ever (John Daly) won a British Open. I agree with you but any golfer can have a good putting week as well.

Hartley, I dont know how to express this without coming across mean. I am sorry in advance.

But if you think Daly is or was a bad putter you havent watched much golf.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by indio

Uhm, I don't know how a person of your legendary stature can make such a ridiculously dumb comment such as that. John Daly has a reputation of being a very good putter and as recently as 2004 was ranked 5th on the tour in putting.

While granted, sometimes John's mind is elswhere and can lead to the occasional poor display on the greens, he is a very good putter. To call him one of the worst putters ever is really a moronic comment to make.

Can't imagine he will putt too good this week though. Hard to read a line when your worried about getting attacked with a steak knife.

Agreed. Best part of his game is his short game. Something people who follow golf know.

[BuzzRavanaugh]

Anybody thinking Scott Verplank in the US Open?? Course would seem to fit his style of play a little.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by BuzzRavanaugh

Anybody thinking Scott Verplank in the US Open?? Course would seem to fit his style of play a little.

Only thing I worry about with him is endurance. The heat and long rounds could take a toll on him. Has the game.