Ashes - have the bookies got it right?

[Leafy Seadragon]

There is of course no bias in the voting so far - Aussies all suggesting odds strongly favouring the Aussies are about right or should further favour them; English suggesting they should favour the English more. Oracle, as the one independent suggested the English were undervalued at the current odds (or is there a hangover here from the recent series?).

Its also worthwhile considering that, once a reasonable amount of money is down, the odds generally reflect the overall money bet, rather than an opinion of the bookies (by laying off bets and shifting odds, bookies would generally aim to be in the position that regardless of outcome, they'll pick up a few % of the bets). Its also worth noting that the odds don't necessarily reflect current betting, but are weighted by all bets put down including those quite some time ago when things may have been very different, so are slow to respond to changing situations once a large amount is bet - if $1Million is already bet, regardless of the change in situation, a large amount of money needs to be bet to significantly change the odds. Bookies are unlikely to back their own professional judgement on this too much, even to make a sizeable windfall, because they generally stand to lose too much.

For me, the odds seem about right 60% Oz, 25% Eng, 15% draw and not entirely coincidentally, represent the series outcome I would currently predict (3-1 Oz). This probably reasonably reflects the uncertainty in Harmison & to a lesser degree Flintoff, but also the fact that the Oz machine just keeps on winning. If Harmison destroys Bangladesh and a few English batsmen find form, the odds may narrow a little to reflect it. The Aussie team of the early 80's would consider betting on the English for the Ashes should they contrive to lose to Bangladesh in the interim, because the odds would be just too good - I think that it was Rod Marsh who commented when the messengers got back from the bookies at Headingly in '81 that he'd "never seen so much money".

As an aside I put the '81 result down not to the intriguing tactic of betting on the opposition, or the Botham/Willis heroics, but to the fool that thought Trevor Chappell was a test cricketer. Harsh maybe, but come on...

[John]

Should we be talking about bookies etc after whats happened in cricket in recent years ? Maybe I being parinod but the more we discourage talk of betting proably the better. Bookies get enough publicity as it is.

The major reasons I feel uncomfortable is I don't ever think we heard the full extent of the Cronje affair. How come he was never proscuted in a caught of law. The commisson itself concluded they could not deceide whether Cronje had revealed everything he knew.




"What do they know of cricket who only cricket know" CLR James

[Milo]

I got 1-2 on Bet365 about a few months ago and took it. I feel this is an absolute banker. Over five tests (in a two horse race + the tie) these odds are very generous. I think (and this is judging on the odds given for other Australian series and other England series) Australia should be more like 2-7/1-4.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Milo

I got 1-2 on Bet365 about a few months ago and took it. I feel this is an absolute banker. Over five tests (in a two horse race + the tie) these odds are very generous. I think (and this is judging on the odds given for other Australian series and other England series) Australia should be more like 2-7/1-4.

1-2 is IMHO never a good bet, but so long out before the series itself is even worse.
You say you have taken 1-2, what will happen to he betting if England thrash Bangladesh, and Harmison bowls well, the odds on Australia will go out then to maybe 10-11, then what if McGrath breaks down, then 10-11 would be e reasonable punt.

Yes and on your other comment about should be 1-4, remember 1981, 500-1 against Rngland winning Half way through the Headingly Test, everyone had a bite at that, and it was not a one of, England bucked the odds thoughout the series.

[Milo]

The likelihood of winning one single match (Headingley 81) and a series of five matches should never be compared. Four months ago you said the same thing to me about the odds changing Ernest. Since then, England have won in South Africa and Bet365 now have Australia at 4-9. They have come in further. England beating Bangladesh will not make on bit of difference. And even if Australia go out to evens money, I simply bet on them again.

I also took 1-3 on Labour to win the next election two years ago. They are currently 1-10 now. Every winning bet is a good bet. I am convinced Australia will win the series (regardless of Australia losing a test match 24 years ago). Therefore, I view 1-2 as good value. You clearly don't. That is your prerogative.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Milo, agree with the analysis. Given the expected outcome of the Bang series is a crushing English victory, only other results are likely to affect the odds, and probably only to push England out. Even with Harmison bowling okay and Flintoff fit, the odds are probably not going to come in too much further. Injuries to a couple of key Aussies would shift the odds far more methinks. I also don't underestimate the implications of the odds and don't get hung up on the Aussies being odds on - commonly in a two team match, one of the sides is odds on (just look at English premiership betting). A 25% chance for England recognises that they have a real (albeit lesser) chance of winning the series. Given the dominance of the Aussies over the past few years over every team in the world, the odds recognise that England actually has a reasonable side and a reasonable chance.

As an aside, the only bit I disagreed with was that I think a winning bet is not a good one if you could get better odds at the same time (the equivalent of accepting a crappy interest rate when a good return is also on offer) - admittedly not what you were debating with Ern. The exception to this is a personal bet, which also carries bragging rights (I've accepted some pretty poor odds from mates as a tradeoff on this)

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

English type of betting has now been replaced by "decimal betting"..

Excellent start. Now if England could just make the move to dollars and cents, Kilometers ect, and basically embrace the metric sytem as a whole, would make thing much easier on themselves and everyone else.

[Mongoose]

Odds are pretty OK. Most people expect Australia to win, having had to fight hard. They're still a long way ahead of the field, and most of us accept that it will need something special from England, probably with a below par Aussie performace, to topple them.

[acker]

Unfortunately us Aussies are/will start paying the price for not re-juvinating our line-up with YOUNGER talent.
Whatever happenned to the days a young nineteen/ twenty year old Ricky Ponting strode to the crease.
Why dont we invest or have faith in the young talent like that anymore ??

[greg]

Originally Posted by Acker

Whatever happenned to the days a young nineteen/ twenty year old Ricky Ponting strode to the crease.
Why dont we invest or have faith in the young talent like that anymore ??

Same reason that England didn't replace Gower,Gatting,Lamb and Botham i suppose.The selectors are scared of being slaughtered for picking someone who isn't as good as the player he is replacing.