If you have been on social media over the last year, you may have seen these hotly debated topics of 'without Scottie' versus 'with Scottie' markets. For those who may not know what that means, books have started offering two different odds boards for tournaments where Scottie Scheffler tees it up — one posting a regular slate of all active participants, with the other removing Scheffler from the mix and allowing them to reconstruct the odds board as if the American weren't in the field.
As a random example, if you bet Brooks Koepka to beat Scheffler in the 'with Scottie' market at 50/1, you would get 50/1 on your bet if he wins the tournament. If you bet him in the 'without Scottie' market at 30/1, you are now playing a leaderboard that doesn't include the top-ranked golfer in the world and would get 30/1 if Koepka either wins the event and actually beats Scheffler or finishes solo second behind him.
There are other examples of how you could "dead heat" chop that further if Koepka finishes in a tie for second with other golfers, but the attributes of this conversation are going to stay pronounced in the understanding of what you are signing up for in each situation.
When you deal with anything in life in terms of pure absolutes, you run the risk of massively skewing actual projections. That doesn't suggest I am ever going to openly advocate for betting in the 'without Scottie' market over the 'with Scottie" market. I just think there are way too many extremely poor mathematically driven points to warrant that as your main stance.
You don't have to look any further than how shops are posting Scheffler's price to win in Phoenix at an implied win probability of over 30%, while likely having him closer to 25%. We would have to talk to individual casinos to get a clearer picture of where their numbers are for the week. However, the point remains that they are not going to allow bettors to get a free look at Scheffler at what they deem to be an "all systems go" price.
All of that is fine because professional bettors are not worrying about what the casinos are posting; they are running their own projections and trying to see where value may lie for them compared to what a casino has for the week. That's the beauty of originating prices and trying to find value. Someone can easily make a case that Scheffler should have over a 30% win probability after rendering that output in the winner's circle during his last two years on tour, and wouldn't even be wrong in their assessment.
That is why we all run numbers in our own fashion.
I would caution about a still-limited sample size if using that math alone to determine a proper price for Scheffler, but the question isn't even so much "is Scheffler's price fair?" I view it more as "why are players past Scheffler getting only marginally adjusted on the original board?" And "why are we getting full-field tournaments splitting Scheffler implied ≈ 30% in a fashion that is massively going over that amount now on the 'without' board?"
You add two percent implied win probability to just 15 players, and you are already at the quota for what Scheffler meant to this field. That can not be proper math in the grand scheme of making a board 'better' to wager into for a given event. I know that is not what most bettors want to hear, but it is why we are allowed freedom to bet any contest the way we choose!
2026 WM Phoenix Open Odds, Predictions: PGA Picks From Proven Model
Outright Winners
Cameron Young +2000 (Without Scottie)
How's that for a curveball?
This is one of those rare situations where the math is about equal on both sides, which is why I expressed in the opening paragraphs that not everything should be viewed as a completely yes-or-no question.
Most books in this space quickly moved Cameron Young from +2500 to +2000 on their overall board early on Monday. We still see a few spots in that +2500 range if we shop around and want to oppose Scheffler. Still, without making this an overly complicated math equation, there are reasons to believe that Young in the 'without' market at +2000 (some are much lower and remove this take) will warrant an edge for us to grab, even though advantages will persist in either scenario.
Casinos have suggested an implied equity return on Young of 4.76% at +2000, versus 3.85% at +2500 — a 0.91% shift. The question then becomes: "Does more than 1% of the win probability shift to Young when we remove Scheffler from the field?" And if it doesn't, how much does our edge shrink while going this route?
I had the proper price on Young to be about 5.43% (call it +1750 for the sake of this discussion) when projecting this board out to include Scheffler. The math shifts a little for all when you remove the No. 1 player in the world, but the biggest takeaway I had is that Young drew an extra percentage point of win equity when you removed that potential issue from the board and got him closer to that +1450 range.
As a general rule of thumb, going toward the 'without' market is a massively losing proposition. However, as someone who has very aggressively stuck my toes in the sand on that take, I wanted to show that boards will always play themselves out differently. Not adjusting to those deviations of what your shop may have someone priced at would be an even greater error than blindly removing Scheffler from the board.
Matchups
Johnny Keefer (-117) over Stephan Jaeger
I talked about Johnny Keefer over Andrew Novak a few weeks ago at the American Express and will continue to ride the hot hand here on Keefer until the market corrects its view of him.
Keefer dominated the Korn Ferry Tour in 2025, becoming the third player in history to sweep both the Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year honors. He also set the Korn Ferry Tour single-season scoring average record with 67.95 and led the tour in top-five finishes, top-10s, and top-25s
As you might know from my stance in the past, backing someone is only part of the game when we also need a fade candidate to target, and I like the idea of opposing Jaeger here in Phoenix after his high-end finish at the Farmers Insurance Open.
While golfers have more room to miss off the tee at TPC Scottsdale, an area that could help Jaeger, the extremely wide miss has remained a problem for him and could derail a profile that lacks any approach pedigree at this course.
A pure upside answer would favor Jaeger because of that boom-or-bust output we consistently get in his game, but matchups are about finding made cuts, and I hope that we can get this bet to the window before Saturday. If we don't, I do worry a little that Jaeger's potential could shine through, although the volatility is still bound to strike at any moment.
Perhaps that can still be good enough for Keefer if he makes the weekend. That said, the best pure path to victory is to get Jaeger out of the mix before the weekend.
