Betting odds have as much to do with public opinion and where they think the action will be as much as who they actually think will win.
That's why they don't meant jack.
No its not. They try and predict the aggregate behavior of betters and determine where the action will be so the lines aren't drastically moving between the opening line and event.
Much more goes into it than who is better than the other. If a line was only based on who was going to win then why would the line ever move.
Is that why Costa went from opening as the underdog to get pounded down to 1.61
Nice try though.
To your final question, I must have been editing my previous response while you were typing because the answer is there.
But in addition, a line can move due to new information - like reports of an injury or a bad camp, or personal issues, or approaching the weight cut heavier than the norm, etc.
I assume you've never gone to horse races or anything because that is a tiny tiny reason as to why lines would change. It's all about where the money is going, that's why lines change
That doesn't make any sense.
Rankings are determined by accomplishments, not by 'who would beat who'. Boetsch has better wins than Philippou which is why he's ranked higher, even if Philippou might be the better fighter.
Still trying to figure out if you just completely don't understood the concept of odds or if you're simply being obstinate (I'm leaning toward the latter). As others have said, betting odds have shown to be one of the more reliable means of predicting the results of an event. Not that they're perfect but your thesis, that "they don't mean jack" is demonstrably false. I suspect you thought you were going to educate some people and threw in a bit of hyperbole for the sake of style. Now you're digging your heels in only to defend the hyperbole which is just silly.
Rankings are basically an advanced version of MMAth. If Costa beats Boetsch, he'll likely be put in the #5 range. Essentially, he's benefiting from Boetsch beating Okami + Lombard. It also doesn't really look at how someone won the fight. Boetsch was dominated in Round 1 and 2 of the Okami fight and he didn't look great against Lombard. I've never been a fan of rankings for this reason.
TS, just to be perfectly accurate, your point may not illustrate that Boetsch is overrated. It could illustrate that Philippou is underrated (actually over and under-ranked may have been a better term. Could have prevented a lot of confusion)
I agree Boetsch is overrated. He's way too slow in the standup and he's going to get sparked by somebody explosive (I believe Lombard was injured therefore he did not KO Boetsch).
Rankings are based on accomplishment. Not who is more skilled than who. Trying to determine skill is extrnemly subjective while looking at resume and actual results is less subjective.
And what is this replacement system you speak of. Costa would be Fringe top ten if he win. Not top five.
Replacement method is Matt Serra being ranked #1 after beating GSP. It's completely stupid.
Moving the target how are we? Not going to try and defend that odds are based solely on who is going anymore?
Of course they are an indicator of who is going to win. But saying that boetsch is overrated because he is a slight dog to Costa is silly because odds have much more in them then just who is going to win.
Rankings are basically an advanced version of MMAth. If Costa beats Boetsch, he'll likely be put in the #5 range. Essentially, he's benefiting from Boetsch beating Okami + Lombard. It also doesn't really look at how someone won the fight. Boetsch was dominated in Round 1 and 2 of the Okami fight and he didn't look great against Lombard. I've never been a fan of rankings for this reason.