- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 63
This guide is for bettors who keep backing Scottie Scheffler or Rory McIlroy at 9/1 and wondering why it never seems to work despite them being obviously the best players in the field.
Golf isn't tennis. The favorite in a tennis match might win 75% of the time. The favorite in a golf tournament wins maybe one in fifteen attempts if they're genuinely the best player in the world in peak form. Field size, variance over 72 holes, and course fit all conspire to make favorites lose far more often than their odds suggest they should.
Field Size Kills Favorite Value
A typical PGA Tour event has 130-156 players. Even if the favorite is twice as likely to win as an average player in the field, they're still competing against 150 other chances for someone else to get hot for four days. The math doesn't favor concentration of probability on one player.Compare this to a tennis match with two players or even a football match with two teams. In those sports the favorite might legitimately have a 60-70% chance of winning. In golf with 150 players, even the most dominant player rarely has above an 8-10% chance of winning any single tournament.
The market prices favorites based on name recognition and recent success, not on realistic win probability. Scottie Scheffler at 8/1 needs to win 11.1% of his starts to justify that price. He doesn't. Nobody does except maybe Tiger Woods in his absolute peak years, and even then not by much.
Public money compresses favorite odds below value. Recreational bettors love backing names they recognize. That money flows to McIlroy, Scheffler, Rahm regardless of course fit or current form. By the time the market opens, favorites are already overpriced, and then public betting makes it worse.
You need roughly 40/1 or longer before odds start representing actual value in full-field golf tournaments. Below 20/1 you're almost always paying a premium for name recognition or recent success that the market has already priced in plus an additional premium from public money.
Variance Over 72 Holes Is Massive
A player can strike the ball perfectly for three rounds and then putt poorly for one round and miss the win. Golf scoring has huge variance because you're aggregating 280-300 shots over four days. Small edges in skill get drowned out by normal statistical noise.The best player in the field might be legitimately better than the 20th best player but the gap isn't as large as favorite odds suggest. Over one round the difference might be 1-2 strokes on average. Over four rounds that's 4-8 strokes. In a tournament where winning score is -20, that gap isn't decisive when variance is high.
Hot putting for four days beats elite ball-striking most weeks. Someone can gain eight strokes putting over a tournament through a combination of skill and luck, and that's enough to win even if their ball-striking is just above average. The favorite might have elite ball-striking but if their putter goes cold, they lose.
Weather and course conditions change throughout tournaments. A player might be best-suited for firm fast conditions but if it rains Saturday and softens the course, their advantage disappears. The favorite's odds are set based on expected conditions but actual conditions often differ.
One bad hole destroys tournaments. Make a triple bogey early in round one and you're chasing the rest of the week. The favorite is just as susceptible to one bad swing or one bad break as anyone else, and when you're priced at 8/1 there's no margin for that kind of mistake.
Course Fit Matters More Than Overall Ability
The best player in the world on paper might not be the best player for this specific course. Scottie Scheffler's elite iron play doesn't help as much on a short course where everyone's hitting wedges into greens. Rory's distance advantage disappears on tight tree-lined tracks where accuracy matters more.Lesser-known players with perfect course fit often contend while favorites struggle. The market prices overall ability and recent form but underweights course-specific demands. A player ranked 40th in the world whose game perfectly matches what the course requires might have a better chance than the world number two whose skillset doesn't fit.
Course history shows this clearly. Check past winners at any venue and you'll see names that weren't favorites that week. They won because their specific strengths matched what the course demanded, not because they were the best players in the field.
Favorites get priced based on season-long performance but tournaments are won based on course-specific performance. Someone averaging 1.8 strokes gained approach for the season sounds elite, but if this week's course has huge greens and the field is averaging 1.5, that edge shrinks to almost nothing.
The market also assumes favorites will adjust their game to suit the course. Sometimes they can, often they can't. If a player's natural ball flight is high and the course demands low trajectory in wind, they're fighting their instincts all week regardless of talent level.
Mental Pressure and Expectations
Favorites carry different pressure than long shots. When you're 8/1 to win, everyone expects you to contend. That pressure shows up in decision-making and recovery from mistakes. A favorite who makes bogey might press to get it back immediately. A long shot who makes bogey just moves on.Media attention and scrutiny affects performance. The favorite does more press, faces more questions, has their every shot analyzed. Long shots play in relative anonymity and freedom. This isn't an excuse but it's a real factor in golf where mental state affects physical performance.
Favorites often need to win rather than just contend. Their season goals might include majors or FedEx Cup points. A T5 finish for them feels like failure even though it's a good result. That mindset can lead to forcing shots or taking risks that backfire.
Recovery from bad starts is harder as favorite. Everyone's watching to see if you'll bounce back. Make a double bogey early and suddenly you're answering questions about whether the pressure got to you. Long shots make doubles and nobody cares, they just play their game.
Also favorites tend to be players who've won before, which means they know what it takes. But they also know how hard it is and how easily it can slip away. That knowledge isn't always helpful when you're trying to close on Sunday.
The Tiger Woods Exception That Proves the Rule
Tiger in his peak years actually did win enough to justify favorite odds. From 1999-2008 he won roughly 30% of the events he entered. His odds during that stretch were often 4/1 to 7/1 and he was genuinely good value because his dominance was so extreme.But Tiger's peak is the exception, not the template. No current player dominates like Tiger did. Scheffler had an incredible 2024 but even he didn't approach Tiger's win rate. The market prices current favorites like they might be the next Tiger when the evidence suggests they're not.
The Tiger template created false expectations about favorite value in golf. Bettors who watched Tiger win constantly think backing favorites should work. It did for Tiger because his edge was unprecedented. For everyone else it doesn't work because their edges are much smaller.
Modern fields are deeper too. The gap between the best player and the 50th best player is smaller now than it was in Tiger's era. Equipment and training have narrowed the skill distribution. That means favorites have less advantage and their odds should be longer than they are.
When Favorites Do Win
Favorites win when they're in peak form and the course perfectly suits their game. Scottie Scheffler at courses that demand elite approach play where he's comfortable gives him a genuine edge. But the market knows this and prices it in, so even when favorites win you often haven't made much profit.Weak fields occasionally allow favorites to win more often. Opposite-field events or early-season tournaments where depth is limited mean the favorite's edge is larger. But these events also have softer betting markets, so the odds still might not represent value.
Favorites who are playing so well that their short odds are actually justified still only win about one in ten times. Even a legitimate 10% win probability means they lose nine times out of ten. That's a lot of losing bets to endure waiting for the win.
Course monopolies exist where certain players just own a venue. Jordan Spieth at Colonial or Dustin Johnson at Riviera had stretches where they genuinely should've been favorites and won enough to justify it. These are rare situations where favorite value exists.
The Actual Math of Golf Favorites
A player at 8/1 implies 11.1% win probability. To break even at that price they need to win one in nine tournaments. The best players in the world average closer to one win per 15-20 starts. The gap between implied probability and actual results is where your money disappears.Check historical win rates for top players. Even during dominant stretches, most elite players win 2-4 times per season across 20-25 starts. That's 8-16% win rate in their best seasons. When they're priced at 10-12% implied probability during those seasons, there's barely any edge and often no edge at all.
Public money makes this worse. If a player should be 12/1 based on actual win probability but public betting pushes them to 8/1, you're now betting at a 25% disadvantage before the tournament even starts. That's insurmountable over any sample size.
The only way backing favorites in golf works long-term is if you're selectively finding spots where their odds are longer than justified. That almost never happens because the market and public both push favorite odds too short.
What to Do Instead of Backing Favorites
Look for value in the 25/1 to 80/1 range where market inefficiencies exist. Players whose games perfectly suit the course but who lack name recognition often sit in this range underpriced. The favorite might be the best player overall but not the best bet.Back multiple players with course fit advantages rather than one favorite. Spread risk across 3-4 players at 40/1 to 60/1 whose games match what the course demands. Your win probability across those bets is higher than backing one favorite at 9/1.
Focus on course history and specific skill advantages rather than overall rankings. The player ranked 8th who has three top-10s at this venue might be a better bet at 35/1 than the world number two at 9/1 playing the course for the first time.
Wait for majors where favorites are even more overbet and value spreads further down the odds board. The public piles onto big names at Augusta or The Open which creates value on capable players at longer odds.
Only back a favorite when their course fit is perfect, form is peak, and odds are longer than usual. This happens maybe a few times per season at most. The rest of the time you're paying a premium that doesn't represent actual value.
Why People Keep Backing Favorites Anyway
It feels safe. Backing Scottie Scheffler at 9/1 feels more rational than backing someone ranked 40th at 60/1 even if the math says the 60/1 shot represents better value. People prefer familiar names and obvious choices to doing the work of finding mispriced players.Recency bias drives favorite betting. Someone wins last week and everyone wants to back them this week. The win is fresh in memory, the odds have shortened, but bettors pile on anyway because the narrative feels right.
Confirmation bias keeps people doing it. When the favorite wins, bettors remember it and think they were smart. When the favorite loses, they rationalize it as bad luck or variance rather than accepting the odds didn't represent value.
Social proof matters in betting. Your mates are backing the favorite, forum picks are backing the favorite, tipping services mention the favorite. Going against that consensus feels wrong even when the math says it's right.
Also there's ego involved. If you back an obscure player at 60/1 and lose, you might feel stupid. If you back the obvious favorite at 9/1 and lose, well everyone else lost too so it doesn't feel as bad. Betting favorites is emotionally safer even when it's financially wrong.
FAQ
Are there situations where backing favorites in golf makes sense?Rarely. Weak-field opposite events where the favorite is genuinely dominant relative to competition might offer value. Or specific course monopolies where a player has proven they own a venue. But these situations are exceptions. In standard full-field PGA Tour events with 130-150 players, backing favorites below 15/1 is almost always -EV because the public has compressed their odds below actual win probability.
What about backing favorites each-way to reduce risk?
Each-way reduces variance but doesn't solve the value problem. If a player at 9/1 should actually be 15/1, betting them each-way just means you lose money slower. You're still paying a premium that doesn't reflect their actual probability of winning or placing. Better to find properly-priced players at longer odds where the value exists on both win and place terms.
Do favorites perform better at majors versus regular tournaments?
Favorites actually tend to win majors slightly less often than regular tour events because fields are deeper and conditions are harder. Major championship pressure affects everyone including favorites. The public overestimates favorite chances at majors even more than usual because big names feel safer on the biggest stages. Historical major winners include lots of first-timers and unexpected names because variance over four rounds on brutal courses is extreme.
Last edited:
