Whilst the bookies put out initial odds it's the punters that decide them by the money they bet. It's a misconception that bookies have a view on whether a team will win, draw or lose - they simply gauge what the punters think in order to make a market where they are guaranteed a win whatever the result.
The comparison with Leicester is interesting but there's one much closer to home. When the Cobblers were on their winning run in the promotion year you could always get way better odds than the more fancied teams such as Oxford and the like. Punters assumed the bubble would burst much as they did with Leicester and there must have been quite a few Cobblers fans than won silly money over that time.
I think people can be lazy when looking at lower league teams and simply go for the names. For example Portsmouth were always skinny odds no matter how badly they were doing.
So in that last instance, what you're saying is the average lower league punter remains a fool?!
Yes I did understand that bookies react to patterns and adjust the odds so as to weight the outcome in their favour as the market develops, but those initial odds set by them will have an effect on a gamblers psyche won't they, in a kind of confirmatory way, positively or otherwise?
The relationship between bookies and punters, and particularly types of punter, must be a seriously complex field of study.
In the meantime, DC saddle me up please squire.