Ashes - have the bookies got it right?

[Rachael]

OK.. I don't ever bet... and never did understand betting lingo.. and now it seems that the old fashioned English type of betting has now been replaced by "decimal betting"... which I've never heard of... so setting up this poll is a bit of a leap in the dark - but here goes...

The bookies seem to be working on somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5... which translates (if I understand the convention properly) as between 5/2 and 7/2 (as the decimal format appears to include your stake and the old-fashioned way does not).

So... the bookies seem to be saying there's something LIKE a 1 in 4 (25%) chance of an England win... with a draw being only marginally less likely (many appear to be offering 5.5 on that, which I'm translating as 9/2).. and as just under a 20% chance.

The quoted odds I turned up on Australia winning were, of course, much greater: 1.4-1.53 seems to cover it. Is that 2-1 favourites in the old lingo? Don't know, but I'm fairly confident that means they reckon there's a 65%-70% chance of Australia winning.

[Occasional Fan]

Rachael - I don't like these decimal formats either, but odds of 1.5 (for the Aussies) are 2/1 ON in the old system - i.e. you win 50p for every pound you stake. That's a bit different from 2/1, where you win 2 pounds for every pound staked.

Ladbrokes website, which can be set to use the decimal or traditional formats, is offering England 3/1 against, the draw 4/1 against and Australia 2/1 ON. Broadly speaking, they are suggesting that Australia are about six times more likely to take the series than England. But of course we are dealing with a market here - so it might be more accurate to say that the market, which includes who knows how many punters, thinks that way at the moment.

My feeling at the moment is that England are much closer to Australia than these odds suggest, and 3/1 in a close two horse race is not a bad price (for the punter). The odds on Australia are too short to interest me, but I wouldn't expect the bookies to lengthen them between now and July unless there are some serious mishaps to the Aussies in the meantime.

Conclusion: England are more likely to win than the odds suggest. (Take the odds, in betting parlance). Australia's odds are ungenerous: take them if you have a load of money to invest and won't be upset to lose it. A draw is only going to happen if the weather ruins the series, so take the 4/1 if you expect a bad summer. That, in my view, is a relatively generous price, but do I really want to bet on a draw? Isn't it disloyal somehow? Well - that's between me and the bookie!

[Occasional Fan]

One other thing: it's early days yet. As the money starts to roll in on England, which I think it will in due course, expect the odds to shorten. If you think England are going to take the series, shop around and invest now!

[Paoli]

Had a little look at TAB Sportsbet the other day, Australia 16/10 on, England at around 5/2, possibly out to 3/1. Not bad odds for England in a 2 horse race...Shall consider an investment..

[Rachael]

As I read it offering 3/1 against England, the draw at 4/1 against and Australia at 2/1 ON suggests that if the entire Ashes series could be run 60 times this summer (parallel universes).. England would be expected to win in 15 series... Australia would be expected to win in 40 series.. and the expectation would be for 12 drawn series..

I assumed that with those results everyone who had placed a bet would break even.... except 15+40+12=67... so the maths doesn't quite add up... the phantom 7 series being ones the punters pay for (within the odds).. and where the betting folk don't have to pay out because they ain't played :-)

So in a perfect scenario everyone would break even... minus the > 10% the bookies would pocket...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

So... the bookies seem to be saying there's something LIKE a 1 in 4 (25%) chance of an England win.

The quoted odds I turned up on Australia winning were, of course, much greater: 1.4-1.53 seems to cover it. Is that 2-1 favourites in the old lingo? Don't know, but I'm fairly confident that means they reckon there's a 65%-70% chance of Australia winning

Hmm I don't like this decimal betting, but the figures don't add up Rachael, 25% England and 65%-70% on Australia winning, that makes either 90% or 95% in total, where is the other 5% or 10% I wonder, or am I missing somthing?.Why can't they stop fiddling, in all senses of the word.

Originally Posted by Paoli69 42737

Had a little look at TAB Sportsbet the other day, Australia 16/10 on, England at around 5/2, possibly out to 3/1. Not bad odds for England in a 2 horse race...Shall consider an investment..

Take the odds now, because when the county season starts, the bookies will not have discounted the fact that Flintoff and Harmison may be fit in time, a good start for their counties, will see Englands odds shorten I reckon.

We all missed the boat in 1981, England dead in the water, odds 500-1, LOL England won, I think all 22 players had taken a punt.

[Beny]

England are gona loose anyway so why waste you're money being patriotic

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

so why waste you're money being patriotic

Out of context maybe, so you are not having a bet then Beny .

[Beny]

I wont be doing it to be patriotic... It's just a lot safer than playing the stock market, albeit a bit less lucrative.

[AussieCricketLover]

Odds make no difference in my opinion, Aussies to romp it home 5 tests to 0 (maybe a couple o draws due to bad weather)