A bizarre game
Anyone need proof that Cricket is one of the most logically-challenging sports needs to go to Cricinfo and read about last night's ODI between Australia and South Africa. Dean Jones (a former Aussie cricketer) had this to say halfway through the game:
"This knock of 434 is greatest in the ODIs and might not be conquered ever. The way Australia is murdering their opponents, makes them invincible," he said on the sidelines of the second Test between India and England.
Well Dean, that knock of 434 was conquered in a tick over 3 hours. To put it in perspective, the highest ODI scores prior to yesterday were 398 and 397 by Sri Lanka and New Zealand, but against substandard opposition (Kenya and Zimbabwe). The highest score between two "real" teams is, sorry was, 376 made by India against New Zealand.
Not surprisingly, a game where one team scores a world record and then has it chased down has generated a lot of words amongst punters. There will have been some serious money made and lost on the match - none of it by me as I was asleep. Checking the Betfair threads I see that 800,000 pounds was matched on Australia at 1.01. That means a collection of individuals (you would hope it is not one) backed Australia for 400,000 pounds to win 4,000, and lost. Ouch.
But was it a bad bet? Not in my book. There have been well over 2,000 ODI's played and not one of them (until now) has produced a score over 400. Even allowing for the fact that these games tend to produce higher scores now than 20 years ago, the pitch was obviously a road and the boundaries short, 1.01 was probably a fair price at the change of innings. Apparently South Africa were 110/1 then, and 150/1 soon after at the fall of an early wicket. Shockingly bad prices, they should have been closer to 500/1.
Many people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would disagree, and that is what makes punting a reasonable way to make a living - there is no right or wrong way to assess what is the correct "price" for a sporting event, and punters perception of "value" differs - if we all thought the same, there would be no edge.
The advent of betting exchanges has brought about a new phenomena into sports betting which there is very little literature and I suspect no-one has given too much thought to (and I would if I had the time), and that is how the various occurences during a sporting event should affect the price of the individuals or teams involved.
This ODI is a case in point. Australia are 1.01 and South Africa are 110 after Australia make 434-4 in their 50 overs. As I've said above, IMO those prices are a joke and the fact that South Africa successfully chased doesn't alter my opinion. (That is not to say I would back Australia at 1.01 or lay South Africa at 110, as even if such bets were value in my eyes I have an irrational aversion to backing 1.01 shots)
But there is a counter-argument that says the occurences during a sporting event should have no effect on the opening prices. Perhaps Australia should still be 1.80 odd and SAF 2.20 ish (their opening prices) after Oz got their runs. If they can get 434, why can't South Africa?
The Lions scored an early try against the All Blacks in the second test last year and NZ's price went from about 1.13 to 1.20. Does an early try by the rank outsider justify such movement?
Pakistan lost three wickets in the first over of a test match late last year against India and their price skyrocketed. Even worse, they were 39/6. No prizes for guessing who won the game. Is a wicket in a test match really worth the 5% the prices move?
Wickets, runs, tries - they're all part and parcel of sport - we just don't know when they'll occur, and at what frequency. Logic tells us that such occurences should affect the price of the combatants, but as I implied at the beginning, sport is one of the most illogical beasts around. As such, "taking the counter view" (e.g. backing SAF at 110 when it looks like they have no hope, or backing the AB's at 1.20 when the Lions scored a try) is probably not the dumbest thing to do after all.
So, here we are on the final morning of the test match between West Indies and New Zealand - NZ need another 2 wickets to win and the Windies 45 runs. The prices are 1.22 NZ and 5.2 Windies. "Logic" tells us that NZ, the pregame favourites, should be able to wrap up the final 2 wickets and win, but if I was having my first bet on the game now, I know what I'd do.
"This knock of 434 is greatest in the ODIs and might not be conquered ever. The way Australia is murdering their opponents, makes them invincible," he said on the sidelines of the second Test between India and England.
Well Dean, that knock of 434 was conquered in a tick over 3 hours. To put it in perspective, the highest ODI scores prior to yesterday were 398 and 397 by Sri Lanka and New Zealand, but against substandard opposition (Kenya and Zimbabwe). The highest score between two "real" teams is, sorry was, 376 made by India against New Zealand.
Not surprisingly, a game where one team scores a world record and then has it chased down has generated a lot of words amongst punters. There will have been some serious money made and lost on the match - none of it by me as I was asleep. Checking the Betfair threads I see that 800,000 pounds was matched on Australia at 1.01. That means a collection of individuals (you would hope it is not one) backed Australia for 400,000 pounds to win 4,000, and lost. Ouch.
But was it a bad bet? Not in my book. There have been well over 2,000 ODI's played and not one of them (until now) has produced a score over 400. Even allowing for the fact that these games tend to produce higher scores now than 20 years ago, the pitch was obviously a road and the boundaries short, 1.01 was probably a fair price at the change of innings. Apparently South Africa were 110/1 then, and 150/1 soon after at the fall of an early wicket. Shockingly bad prices, they should have been closer to 500/1.
Many people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would disagree, and that is what makes punting a reasonable way to make a living - there is no right or wrong way to assess what is the correct "price" for a sporting event, and punters perception of "value" differs - if we all thought the same, there would be no edge.
The advent of betting exchanges has brought about a new phenomena into sports betting which there is very little literature and I suspect no-one has given too much thought to (and I would if I had the time), and that is how the various occurences during a sporting event should affect the price of the individuals or teams involved.
This ODI is a case in point. Australia are 1.01 and South Africa are 110 after Australia make 434-4 in their 50 overs. As I've said above, IMO those prices are a joke and the fact that South Africa successfully chased doesn't alter my opinion. (That is not to say I would back Australia at 1.01 or lay South Africa at 110, as even if such bets were value in my eyes I have an irrational aversion to backing 1.01 shots)
But there is a counter-argument that says the occurences during a sporting event should have no effect on the opening prices. Perhaps Australia should still be 1.80 odd and SAF 2.20 ish (their opening prices) after Oz got their runs. If they can get 434, why can't South Africa?
The Lions scored an early try against the All Blacks in the second test last year and NZ's price went from about 1.13 to 1.20. Does an early try by the rank outsider justify such movement?
Pakistan lost three wickets in the first over of a test match late last year against India and their price skyrocketed. Even worse, they were 39/6. No prizes for guessing who won the game. Is a wicket in a test match really worth the 5% the prices move?
Wickets, runs, tries - they're all part and parcel of sport - we just don't know when they'll occur, and at what frequency. Logic tells us that such occurences should affect the price of the combatants, but as I implied at the beginning, sport is one of the most illogical beasts around. As such, "taking the counter view" (e.g. backing SAF at 110 when it looks like they have no hope, or backing the AB's at 1.20 when the Lions scored a try) is probably not the dumbest thing to do after all.
So, here we are on the final morning of the test match between West Indies and New Zealand - NZ need another 2 wickets to win and the Windies 45 runs. The prices are 1.22 NZ and 5.2 Windies. "Logic" tells us that NZ, the pregame favourites, should be able to wrap up the final 2 wickets and win, but if I was having my first bet on the game now, I know what I'd do.
posted by Rob Crawford at 8:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home