Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If anyone doesn't know the Ashes starts next week and I thought I'd make a thread about it (So I'd also put a bet on how long it takes some yank to post "Cricket is boring hurr durr" ). The ashes by the way for those who don't know is a bi-yearly cricket series between England and Australia. It has been going since before American football existed and is to any English Cricket fan what the world cup is to a football (soccer) fan. The Cricket World Cup < the Ashes. (And not just because England have never won the Cricket World Cup )

If you're one of those Cricket fans who comes out of the woodwork everytime the Ashes comes around and haven't been paying attention listen up. England have had one of their greatest ever years in Cricket. To start the year they kicked off with a more than competitive draw with South Africa (arguably the best test cricket side in the world at the time) then beat minnows Bangladesh in their own back yard but that was to be expected. The real business started when England won the world twenty20 cup in the West Indies. Whatsmore aside from the first few games when rain and some idiot named duckworth lewis mucked things up they hammered everyone they faced including (guess who) Australia in the final, who had before that game hammered every opponent they had met. Then after a comfortable series against bangladesh we played and beat (guess who) Australia in a one day series, one day being something suposedly the Australians are still the best in the world at (ICC ODI rankings you're having a laugh). Then a Pakistan test series which will be remembered for bet fixing scum bags but should be remembered for Ian Broad's ascendancy and Graeme Swan telling the world there is no better spinner out there. Oh yeah and we won that one too, plus the ODI series.

Now, as for Australia. They've had one of the worst years in their history. So much so that this Ashes series is probably the only thing Ricky Ponting has left if he doesn't want to be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains they have ever had, oh except when he had Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath in the squad of course. Back then he was a good captain, right? Quite frankly they've been a disaster. Losing games they were supposed to have walked and leaving some series' without even a win. This year has seen Australia go from first in the world test rankings (shouldn't have been there in the first place imo) to 5th, which is behind (guess who) England.

Now compare the two sides declared for this Ashes series and you get an even better picture of how England are the better side this time around. England now possess in Graeme Swan undoubtedly the best spinner in the world, this is compared to Australia's spinners who are...not worth mentioning (no really, trust me on that one). Our bowling attack is surely the best on paper. The only worry left is in the batting department. Somewhere England need to pull together no doubt (especially pieterson who for my money shouldnt be in the squad) but on their game are more than capable. We have in Trott a consistent run maker who will be a reliable third man in tricky starts. One best defensive batsmen in Paul Collingwood, who can turn it up a notch when he needs to (also one of the best fielders in the world btw). And whatsmore, we have what I believe to be the best lower order batsmen in any test side right now. Broad and Swan in particular are people Australia are going to have to work to take down. It wont be a typical English topple down tail end once the Ausies get through the middle order.
Mark my words people, away series or not, England are the thinking man's favourites. England will win this series. So if you want to see an English victory this year after the mockery that was the football world cup, get the radio on one of these late nights once you get in from a night out and hear England knocking the Ausies round like clowns.

whatwhat wrote:If you do, put a fiver on England to win the ashes. The muppets who decide the odds supposedly have no idea about cricket and have put up Australia as ODDS ON FAVOURITES. They are having a laugh. I mean even if England aren't favourites putting Australia as odds on is one dumb judgement if ever I have heard one.

You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?

If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.

Odds making is a statistical process.

I have a feeling that we're going to be the victims of our own overconfidence. It'll start well, but we'll start slipping up at the vital points where we shouldn't. After the kicking the Aussies took in Rugby t'other night, they'll be wanting to claw back at least some respect wherever they can.

They'll have the whole country behind them and they know they have to get this right; I don't think it's going to be an easy one against a determined Ozzie side.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:If you do, put a fiver on England to win the ashes. The muppets who decide the odds supposedly have no idea about cricket and have put up Australia as ODDS ON FAVOURITES. They are having a laugh. I mean even if England aren't favourites putting Australia as odds on is one dumb judgement if ever I have heard one.

You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?

If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.

Odds making is a statistical process.

They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds. No they make a book of odds hence the name. They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.

Avatar 720 wrote:I have a feeling that we're going to be the victims of our own overconfidence. It'll start well, but we'll start slipping up at the vital points where we shouldn't. After the kicking the Aussies took in Rugby t'other night, they'll be wanting to claw back at least some respect wherever they can.

They'll have the whole country behind them and they know they have to get this right; I don't think it's going to be an easy one against a determined Ozzie side.

With respect I don't think the rugby will effect the Ausies cricket team. Besides Australians don't really care much about Rugby Union.

No it will be their shortcomings in Cricket this year which will spur them on in the Ashes. So yeah England will have that to contend with. Difference is, England do it with a quality team this time, one which has proven it can cope with hype and overconfidence.

Yeah, bring on the Ashes.

England have a strong team, with good balance and a lot of stability. Australia, on the other hand, are still entirely uncertain about their current test line up. We just announced a 17 man squad for the first test – in part a reflection of injuries to Bollinger and Clarke, but more a result of indecision over the same selection issues we’ve been facing for a couple of years now – the no 6 spot and the spinner. The players in the 17 man squad that might fit those spots could be any combination of North, Khawaja, Ferguson, Smith, Hauritz or Doherty. It’s a mess, quite frankly.

But there is undeniably talent in the Australian squad, and certainly weaknesses in the English camp. England is dependant on a few It should be remembered that despite losing the series, Australia dominated much more of the play through the last series in England than the English could manage – if Monty hadn’t survived as long as he did in Cardiff how might the series have gone?

Coming into this series, England should be recognised as the better team, if only because they are more settled and better structured, but that doesn’t make a team more likely to win. One of the great things about cricket is how different it is around the world, and in Australian conditions you need to have a method for prising out wickets once the ball stops swinging. England has a world class spinner in Swann, but he hasn't bowled down here before and while it is entirely likely he'll be able to continue taking wickets with the old ball, it remains an unknown. Given the thumpings England has consistantly received in Australia in the last couple of decades because they couldn't take old ball wickets, simply expecting Swann to solve that problem is a big assumption.

I’d probably put it as an even money bet right now, tipping slightly towards England if the Australians pick North and Hauritz for the first test, as I suspect they might. They could recognise that we simply don’t have test quality spinner, and pick Harris as the fourth quick, while relying on North as an all-rounder (as he was originally picked). The other option is to keep Hauritz as a specialist spinner, but then actually pick the sixth best batsmen in the country, Callum Ferguson, and leave out North. Either of these options would probably make Australia slight favourites, but given the history of our selectors and the noise they’ve been making, I think it’s more likely they’ll just keep on muddling along, and concede the advantage to England.

Just as a correction, Australia didn’t start this year as the number 1 test nation. They lost that in August of last year after our defeat by England, that caused us to drop to fourth. But none of that means anything anyway, the rankings system is very poor as it looks at whatever results you scored the last three years, ignoring the number of games you play at home, and the quality of your opposition. In the last three years Australia have played a greater proportion of away tests than any other country, and haven’t bolstered our results with series against any of the minnows. Meanwhile, India are currently ranked at number 1, but this is due largely to playing the highest proportion of home series, and playing series against minnows. What quality teams have India beaten away from home? How serious can a rankings systems be when it considers the number 1 test nation to be one that hardly ever wins outside of India?

Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:You know that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, right?

If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory.

Odds making is a statistical process.

True, although it does show systemic bias, though, as the majority of bet makers are not impartial judges. It's been interesting to note in the last couple of years as my AFL club, the West Coast Eagles, have been terrible and frequently very unlikely to win, but the oddsmakers will give them odds showing a somewhat competitive chance, simply because we're a very big club with lots of fans who have a gamble.

Although I should point out I don't know if that's actually having an effect here, as I just don't know what the ratio of betmakers are in England and Australia.

whatwhat wrote:
They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds.No they make a book of odds hence the name.

Where did I say that they didn't make a book of odds? I said that odds aren't calculated according to the judgment of one person, and that they're based on statistics. Neither of those indicates that someone doesn't "make" odds.

whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.

Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens. And even if it weren't the assigned odds of victory aren't based on the talent of a given team, but on the number and size of anticipated wagers.

whatwhat wrote:They are called bookmakers for a reason, they do have to make starting odds. No they make a book of odds hence the name. They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.

Not really, no. They set an initial price and then look to balance that price to reduce their own exposure. If too much money comes in on one side they shift the odds, to draw in money on the other side. You'll often see big bets placed in the last minutes before the event, contrary to what the media reports these are rarely actual punters, generally they're bookies looking to reduce their exposure by betting with other bookies.

If you're not familiar with the process of arbitrage then I recommend looking it up. It'll explain how that process goes to set a general price (or set of odds) based on the above.

sebster wrote:
Although I should point out I don't know if that's actually having an effect here, as I just don't know what the ratio of betmakers are in England and Australia.

Odds are almost always localized, meaning that they're adjusted for regional differences.

For example, you might expect to see English teams receive more favorable odds in England because you're more likely to receive more bets hedging an English victory.

Of course, that might also be false, you'd have to keep long-term records to know the tendencies for your demographic. Usually it takes about 3-5 years for a bookie to develop good enough records to reliably turn a profit.

Don't usually get to watch too much Cricket, although I DO like it, when I manage to see a game. It's a sport I'd like to get more into, and to be frank, I'd support the England Tiddlywinks team so I'll probably be following the Ashes this time around.

dogma wrote:Odds are almost always localized, meaning that they're adjusted for regional differences.

That would open up some very profitable opportunities for arbitrage, wouldn't it?

Hence the Western obsession with the wager.

dogma wrote:Hence the Western obsession with the wager.

But if the markets are localised, there wouldn't even be a wager needed to make some money. You could just place offsetting bets in each country, and make your money on the differential.

Well, up to the point where the price difference is smaller than the transaction cost, anyway.

Assuming those offsetting bets exist. Sure, you can alter the probability of payout, but ts unlikely that you'll stack the game in such a way that you a certain to win.

The numbers behind multiple bets in roulette are a good analogy.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.

Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens.

Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?

Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.

sebster wrote:Yeah, bring on the Ashes.

England have a strong team, with good balance and a lot of stability. Australia, on the other hand, are still entirely uncertain about their current test line up. We just announced a 17 man squad for the first test – in part a reflection of injuries to Bollinger and Clarke, but more a result of indecision over the same selection issues we’ve been facing for a couple of years now – the no 6 spot and the spinner. The players in the 17 man squad that might fit those spots could be any combination of North, Khawaja, Ferguson, Smith, Hauritz or Doherty. It’s a mess, quite frankly.

But there is undeniably talent in the Australian squad, and certainly weaknesses in the English camp. England is dependant on a few It should be remembered that despite losing the series, Australia dominated much more of the play through the last series in England than the English could manage – if Monty hadn’t survived as long as he did in Cardiff how might the series have gone?

Coming into this series, England should be recognised as the better team, if only because they are more settled and better structured, but that doesn’t make a team more likely to win. One of the great things about cricket is how different it is around the world, and in Australian conditions you need to have a method for prising out wickets once the ball stops swinging. England has a world class spinner in Swann, but he hasn't bowled down here before and while it is entirely likely he'll be able to continue taking wickets with the old ball, it remains an unknown. Given the thumpings England has consistantly received in Australia in the last couple of decades because they couldn't take old ball wickets, simply expecting Swann to solve that problem is a big assumption.

I’d probably put it as an even money bet right now, tipping slightly towards England if the Australians pick North and Hauritz for the first test, as I suspect they might. They could recognise that we simply don’t have test quality spinner, and pick Harris as the fourth quick, while relying on North as an all-rounder (as he was originally picked). The other option is to keep Hauritz as a specialist spinner, but then actually pick the sixth best batsmen in the country, Callum Ferguson, and leave out North. Either of these options would probably make Australia slight favourites, but given the history of our selectors and the noise they’ve been making, I think it’s more likely they’ll just keep on muddling along, and concede the advantage to England.

Just as a correction, Australia didn’t start this year as the number 1 test nation. They lost that in August of last year after our defeat by England, that caused us to drop to fourth. But none of that means anything anyway, the rankings system is very poor as it looks at whatever results you scored the last three years, ignoring the number of games you play at home, and the quality of your opposition. In the last three years Australia have played a greater proportion of away tests than any other country, and haven’t bolstered our results with series against any of the minnows. Meanwhile, India are currently ranked at number 1, but this is due largely to playing the highest proportion of home series, and playing series against minnows. What quality teams have India beaten away from home? How serious can a rankings systems be when it considers the number 1 test nation to be one that hardly ever wins outside of India?

Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?

First of all you're wrong to be comparing this to past Ashes series. Particularly the last one, where Australia were the better team going into it no doubt. This time is completely different. Unlike series where Australia dominated England you don't have your Shane Warne's and Glenn McGrath who lets be honest Australia pretty much relied on for the best part of your decade and a half at the number one spot.

Swann isn't our only class bowler either as you seem to think. Broad has improved much since the last ashes test series and you know what happened there. Anderson and Bresnan are also world class. If there is anything England can rely on it's the bowling attack.

I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one. Besides away wins or not India are the best test side at the moment, there are not many who doubt that. Yes they don't travel well, they never have, but their standard at home at the moment is enough to tell me they are the best.

Your claim that Ponting will be remembered as one of the worst Australian captains is disappointing, and reflects poorly on an otherwise interesting post. Off the top of my head I can think of about a half dozen captains who were objectively less successful, and more damaging to their teams. Your double standard here is quite obvious – willing to dismiss Ponting’s considerable successes when he had a stronger team, but unwilling to grant any allowance for what is now a much less successful team. Should Strauss be similarly discounted because he’s currently leading a much stronger team than many previous English captains?

You're forgetting Strauss lead England to an ashes victory last year with a lesser team. Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath should be hailed higher than Ponting in remembrance of those victories, Ponting was lucky to captain a team with them in it. His batting ability by the way I don't doubt but that doesn't make him a captain. Strauss on the other hand doesn't have two of the best cricketers ever to walk the earth on his team but has summoned up so much confidence in this side now that they can now be cocky with the media while they prepare for the Ashes in tasmania.

I also think your far too easily dismissing the disadvantage have in not having a decent spinner. Your even proposing you drop one? This when there is debate in England about fielding two. I can't believe the Australian selectors are so at odds about how important spin will be. Neither do I think if they did so that would make them favourites, don't know where you got that from. A team can't become favourites because you swap a poor player for a quality one, not when your taking away from a certain aspect of your team, i.e. bowling attack. Which is already weak.

Australia have just been lulling England into a false sense of security.

whatwhat wrote:

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
They don't sit around waiting at evens untill someone makes the first bet ffs.

Uh, yeah, that's basically what happens.

Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?

Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.

I used to work at a bookmakers, and as such can vouch for what whatwhat () is saying. The starting odds are based upon a variety of different factors - form, potential frequency of betting, overall quality of the team/horse (which is of course, highly subjective), whether or not the conditions are favourable... etc.

No, the starting odds are not even until people start to bet, at least, not here in the UK. If the starting odds are even, it's a reflection of the factors listed above.

Correct and then the odds react to demand after that point.

Suggesting that all odds start even then form based on what bets are placed shows a lack of understanding. Bookmakers don't take even or odds on bets for obvious reasons. A. because only idiots would place a bet on something they can only lose and b. because bookies would just be taking advantage of such idiots.

And even then bookmakers can change odds after their books have been launched in reaction to new events. For example if Rooney got injured and ruled out for the champions league Man Utds odds would be changed by the bookmakers. If it depended entirely on the placement of bets then odds on and evens would never move for obvious reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Australian squad has been given:

Ricky Ponting (captain), Michael Clarke (vice-captain), Doug Bollinger, Xavier Doherty, Callum Ferguson, Brad Haddin, Ryan Harris, Nathan Hauritz, Mike Hussey, Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson, Simon Katich, Usman Khawaja, Marcus North, Peter Siddle, Steven Smith, Shane Watson

From that I'd say obvious the biggest problems fro England are Ponting, Watson and Clarke (who may not play the first test if he doesn't recover fitness in time). Biggest weaknesses would be North (poor form), Mike Hussey (poor form) and Haruitz (mediocre cricketer).

Whereas I have no worries about the English bowlers but yeh obvious doubts are Cook (who scored a ton the other day but apart from that has been on poor form) and Pieterson who got in based on his hairstyle and celebrity girlfriend.

whatwhat wrote:Correct and then the odds react to demand after that point.

Suggesting that all odds start even then form based on what bets are placed shows a lack of understanding. Bookmakers don't take even or odds on bets for obvious reasons. A. because only idiots would place a bet on something they can only lose and b. because bookies would just be taking advantage of such idiots.

And even then bookmakers can change odds after their books have been launched in reaction to new events. For example if Rooney got injured and ruled out for the champions league Man Utds odds would be changed by the bookmakers. If it depended entirely on the placement of bets then odds on and evens would never move for obvious reasons.

Yeah, that's true although I would add to that by saying you can make money from 'odds on' bets, and bookies will take them. They're just crap returns, is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've also been a croupier, and I can tell you that there are people who EXCLUSIVELY play the even money bets. We hate those people. What's the point in sitting putting £5 a spin on red for 5 hours?

How is that exciting?

Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo. On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.


At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.

Albatross wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've also been a croupier, and I can tell you that there are people who EXCLUSIVELY play the even money bets. We hate those people. What's the point in sitting putting £5 a spin on red for 5 hours?

How is that exciting?

lol exactly you get nowhere. Anything you gain you stand the same odds to lose on your next bet. Waste of time.

whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.

Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.

On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.


At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.

Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.

Albatross wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.

Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.

That is harsh. Try: "Only muppets would wager more than they can afford to lose" Then I would maybe agree. Everything is alright in moderation, a flutter every now and again never hurt anyone.

Albatross wrote:

On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.


At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.

Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.

I wonder what the odds are on England taking an uzi to their size 9s? Evens?

whatwhat wrote:

Albatross wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo.

Yes. Although, once again, I would go further and say that only muppets would wager money. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh - but my experiences in the gaming industry have led me to look very unfavourably on gambling.

That is harsh. Try: "Only muppets would wager more than they can afford to lose" Then I would maybe agree. Everything is alright in moderation, a flutter every now and again never hurt anyone.

I suppose. It's hard to work in a casino (especially) and NOT end up feeling extremely negative about gambling. Something about seeing people spend their kids' Christmas money the day before Christmas Eve. Yes, that actually happened to me. The guy went 'Oh, FFS I'm gonna have to go and sell my car now!' as if it was my fault!

He was back within the hour. Don't know where he got the money, don't want to know.

Albatross wrote:

On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.


At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.

Nah, it's not the case. It's because the people who set the odds for the bookmaking companies probably think that Australia are the inherently 'better' team, or that England will take an uzi to their size 9s - or possibly a combination of the two.

I wonder what the odds are on England taking an uzi to their size 9s? Evens?

whatwhat wrote:First of all you're wrong to be comparing this to past Ashes series. Particularly the last one, where Australia were the better team going into it no doubt. This time is completely different.

Every Ashes is completely different, but the home ground advantage is always there.

Unlike series where Australia dominated England you don't have your Shane Warne's and Glenn McGrath who lets be honest Australia pretty much relied on for the best part of your decade and a half at the number one spot.

English people keep saying that. It's wrong. Langer. Hayden. Ponting. Martyn. Clarke. Hussey. Gilchrist. Warne. Gillespie. Clark. McGrath.

It's a list of players of incredible talent, you could take any player from there and he'd be a star in any other team.

Swann isn't our only class bowler either as you seem to think. Broad has improved much since the last ashes test series and you know what happened there. Anderson and Bresnan are also world class. If there is anything England can rely on it's the bowling attack.

You need to read my post closer. I never mentioned the quality of the other bowlers - Anderson is certainly world class but a swing bowler will not take sides apart in Australia with the old ball. This has been England's problem in Australia, early in-roads but an inability to keep taking wickets. Swann is the guy who might change that this time around.

And Bresnan is not an elite bowler. It just doesn't make sense to talk about him in the same context as Khan or Steyn. He's a soilid part of the team, but that's it.

I think Broad will do quite well here, by the way.

I too have little faith in the rankings system. But then that was the case at many times when Australia were number one.

The only thing that allowed the system to gain legitimacy was the fact it kept putting Australia at number one, and everyone knew they were. Just look at the record from the mid-90s until the start of last year - no team can come close to our winning ratio - no team had a winning record against us. We were simply the best team, and that can't be seriously disputed.

Besides away wins or not India are the best test side at the moment, there are not many who doubt that. Yes they don't travel well, they never have, but their standard at home at the moment is enough to tell me they are the best.

So you don't think a team needs to be able to win away from home to be able to call themselves world champions?

You're forgetting Strauss lead England to an ashes victory last year with a lesser team. Shane Warne and Glenn Macgrath should be hailed higher than Ponting in remembrance of those victories, Ponting was lucky to captain a team with them in it. His batting ability by the way I don't doubt but that doesn't make him a captain. Strauss on the other hand doesn't have two of the best cricketers ever to walk the earth on his team but has summoned up so much confidence in this side now that they can now be cocky with the media while they prepare for the Ashes in tasmania.

I also think your far too easily dismissing the disadvantage have in not having a decent spinner. Your even proposing you drop one? This when there is debate in England about fielding two. I can't believe the Australian selectors are so at odds about how important spin will be. Neither do I think if they did so that would make them favourites, don't know where you got that from. A team can't become favourites because you swap a poor player for a quality one, not when your taking away from a certain aspect of your team, i.e. bowling attack. Which is already weak.

The Australians are very keen to play a spinner, we just don't have one. Hauritz is very poor. Now they're playing about with Doherty, who's performed well for Tasmania in limited forms of the game but could hardly get a regular game in the longer forms. Now they're trying to pretend he's a test standard spinner.

And if we went with my option we wouldn't be taking away from our bowling - that might not have been clear because you don't know the current make up of the team? North is currently in the team as a specialist batsman, despite having been picked originally as an all rounder to allow the team to take four specialist bowlers. They did this for a couple of tests, got cold feet and put Hauritz in, while North remained as a specialist batsman. Which makes no sense, because he isn't the sixth best batsmen in the country.

So the sensible options are to play North as an all rounder, and pick four specialist quicks, or to keep Hauritz and pick three specialist quicksr, then use the sixth batting slot to play the sixth best batsmen (likely Ferguson).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Which is why they can't rely on the placement of bets alone to form odds. Only muppets will wager more money then they stand to gain imo. On the other hand if they did and it was like dogma said, everything starts at evens, you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to place a bet on something highly unlikely (like the exact number of runs etc) when you only stand to gain your money back 1:1. The bookmakers need an incentive, so they need to start their books to reflect the likeliness of something happening. That's not something you can work out based on the statistics of how many people would make the bet.


At the end of the day Dogma, your statement: "If Australia is the favorite its because the majority of gamblers have placed money on their victory. " Is not the case.

Dogma is likely assuming non-fixed betting odds (where a win pays according to the final odds, not the odds at the point of taking the bet). You seem to be assuming fixed odds gambling.

Either way, are you seriously claiming the demand for different options doesn't impact their prices? Maybe not with bits and pieces bookies at the track, but at major betting houses with deep betting fields, where it's all about controlling exposure...

No he isn't claiming that. He's claiming that not all starting prices are 'evens'. Which is correct.

sebster wrote:And Bresnan is not an elite bowler.

I have confidence you will be proved wrong about that.

Just remember that England are great at snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory! If you ever wanted to bet on a side where the outcome is totally open, then bet on England. When they take to the field you can honestly say that you have no way of predicting the outcome.

Wolfstan wrote:Just remember that England are great at snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory!.

Are you sure that's not the football team?

whatwhat wrote:


Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?

Yeah, because bets are paid out according to the odds at wager.

Also, the phrase "even odds" implies a 2:1 payout, not a 1:1; ie. paying 1 dollar per dollar wagered, plus the wager itself.

whatwhat wrote:
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.

Bad bookmakers maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:No he isn't claiming that. He's claiming that not all starting prices are 'evens'. Which is correct.

Does "even odds" mean something else across the Atlantic? Because here its basically a reference to a color bet at the roulette table.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


Do you know what even odds are? I thought you were smart Dogma. I mean I certainly didn't think you were the kind of person who made bets on even odds. Is there any other pointless activities you participate in? What is it that draws you to it dogma. Is it the shear adranaline rush of either losing your money or getting what you paid back which draws you to it?

Yeah, because bets are paid out according to the odds at wager.

Also, the phrase "even odds" implies a 2:1 payout, not a 1:1; ie. paying 1 dollar per dollar wagered, plus the wager itself.

Erm that is 1:1. i.e. you win at a ratio of 1:1 what you wager, plus what you wagered. So yeah effectively 2:1 but 2/1 odds are not even.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Bookmakers rely on a lot to make their starting odds. Most of them will employ sports journalists and former sportsmen to help them with that. My opinion is they have it wrong here.

Bad bookmakers maybe.

dogma wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:No he isn't claiming that. He's claiming that not all starting prices are 'evens'. Which is correct.

Does "even odds" mean something else across the Atlantic? Because here its basically a reference to a color bet at the roulette table.

I tell you what they have some dumb bookmakers on your side of the Atlantic if everything starts out at even odds then forms in response to the bets made. I can't beleive your digging a bigger hole on this one.

So lets say someone wants to place a bet on 310 runs exactly in the second innings, do you really think anyone is going to make that bet on even odds? considering how unlikely the chance of them getting it exactly right is? You have to be kidding me.

No bookmakers make odds to reflect how likely the outcome. Then, after that it fluctuates with demand and lack there of. But can still be changed by the bookmaker as has been explained.

This is coming from an ivy leaguer? ffs.

From wikipedia:

A bookmaker strives to accept bets on the outcome of an event in the right proportions so that he makes a profit regardless of which outcome prevails. See Dutch book and coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). This is achieved primarily by adjusting what are determined to be the true odds of the various outcomes of an event in a downward fashion.

This fits in with your: "everything starts at evens" theory how?

sebster wrote:Dogma is likely assuming non-fixed betting odds (where a win pays according to the final odds, not the odds at the point of taking the bet). You seem to be assuming fixed odds gambling.

I'm not assuming anything. Dogma was the one who made the original rebuttal to my statement, if anyone is assuming anything it is him. Quite how he could have come to the idea I was thinking of non-fixed odds in the context of sport betting I have no idea. Especially when he's talking about bookmakers, bookmakers are needed in non fixed betting why?