I think the Times is interpreting the odds incorrectly. The way to read the odds is 1/5 means for every $5 wagered, you would get only $1. That means, in the below case chances of ARR winning are seen to be far higher - meaning if you wagered $35 you only get $1 if ARR won.
I reproduce this example from a forum: As an example. How do Winslet and Streep stack up against each other? Kate Winslet 1/3 Meryl Streep 4/1 Think of it as, "If you want to win the amount of money on the left, you have to bet the amount of money on the right." So if we're talking dollars, a $3 bet for Kate Winslet would pay off in $1 won. However, betting only $1 on Meryl Streep would pay off in $4 won (and a $3 bet on her would give you $12). Thus, they're saying Kate is 12 times more likely to win. --- In [email protected], "Jahanzeb Farooq" <jahanzebti...@...> wrote: > > was'nt it James Howard for Defiance which that leaked winners list > also says? i am getting worried now, is there some truth behind that > leaked list. > though at first it did not make much sense to me, because i think > Desplat (CCOBB) or Elfman (Milk) are more likely to do the upset > rather than Howard. > > > > --- In [email protected], Sam <samsinging@> wrote: > > > > While India hopes and prays for A R Rahman to create musical history > at the Oscars, international websites are not so optimistic. The > master composer has slipped in both categories he has been nominated > in (best original score and best song). James Howard's Defiance is the > favourite with odds at 1/5, while Rahman stands at 1/35. > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Slumdog-Millionaire-sizzles-on- > global-betting-sites/articleshow/4163276.cms > > >
