South Africa Vs India

[marc71178]

Originally posted by full_length
aah there we have it from the horse's mouth .. or whatever the phrase is..

translation: a 'real gambler' would rather bet on India than on Australia on whom he's not going to get great odds, or on England, WI, NZ, SL, Zimbabwe, or even Pakistan.

No, because the Australian odds being short more truly indicate their chances of winning than the Indian odds do.

A true gambler would take a horse to win at 6-1 on (a return of 16p for a £1 bet) if they perceive the horse is likely to win 99 times out of 100.

At the moment, I see India quoted at about 4 to 1 - meaning if the Tournament were played 10 times, the bookies think India will win it 2 times.

In my view if it were played 10 times, they may win it once, meaning my odds would be 9-1.

Now Australia are about 2-1 meaning they'd win 66 out of every 100. My view would be it's more like 75 or 80 times out of 100, so the 2-1 is generous, so I'd be more likely to take it.

That is why I say gamblers would not touch India - the volume of "mug" punters betting on them drives the price down so that it is not indicative of their chances.

Does that explain my reasoning?

[marc71178]

And yeah, if Gough had played the match and if he had managed to bowl well and if he had managed to get 2/19 Sachin would have scored yet another ODI century.. And Yuvaraj would have murdered the bowlers like he has done a few times in the past.

How do you know that? I'm saying that it would've been closer than it was had Gough at full fitness played. You can't just declare something like that would have happened it is being too specific.

[marc71178]

The only trouble he (the gambler) may have could be that India havent played Australia Pakistan or SA too many times in the last two years. They've been playing weaker teams all along. And their win percentage is pretty high in this period. They can surely be backed to reach semifinals based purely on this, and from there on it's on judgement.

From there on in it is largely based on luck rather than judgement.

As you've stated India haven't played the big nations recently, so their high percentage is a bit false surely, and I can't see there's a guarantee that they'll make it to the semi finals!

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by marc71178

No, because the Australian odds being short more truly indicate their chances of winning than the Indian odds do.

A true gambler would take a horse to win at 6-1 on (a return of 16p for a £1 bet) if they perceive the horse is likely to win 99 times out of 100.

At the moment, I see India quoted at about 4 to 1 - meaning if the Tournament were played 10 times, the bookies think India will win it 2 times.

In my view if it were played 10 times, they may win it once, meaning my odds would be 9-1.

Now Australia are about 2-1 meaning they'd win 66 out of every 100. My view would be it's more like 75 or 80 times out of 100, so the 2-1 is generous, so I'd be more likely to take it.

That is why I say gamblers would not touch India - the volume of "mug" punters betting on them drives the price down so that it is not indicative of their chances.

Does that explain my reasoning?

Opinion my friend, opinion.Learn to tag them as such and not tout them as gospel.How do you know everybody betting on India is a "mug" punter and you are the only one "in the know".Yes Australia has more chances of winning the WC then India.That much any gambler would concede.But then India is a fair risk too like so many others including SA, Pak and SL.

[muralilal]

[quote
As you've stated India haven't played the big nations recently, so their high percentage is a bit false surely, and I can't see there's a guarantee that they'll make it to the semi finals! [/quote]


To be honest, there aren't any guarantees in Onedayer cricket.I would say that India have a very good chance of making it to the semis BUT won't say it's a 100 percent chance, same goes for teams like SA,Pak & SL

[marc71178]

"Mug" punters jump in on a roll such as the Indian's are on at the moment, forcing the odds down.

There will not be many seasoned and successful gamblers putting cash on India to win the World Cupas the odds do not reflect their true chances. Now if they were to be 10 or 12 to 1, I would be tempted as that is about their chances IMO, and therefore it is a value bet.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by muralilal
[quote
As you've stated India haven't played the big nations recently, so their high percentage is a bit false surely, and I can't see there's a guarantee that they'll make it to the semi finals!

To be honest, there aren't any guarantees in Onedayer cricket.I would say that India have a very good chance of making it to the semis BUT won't say it's a 100 percent chance, same goes for teams like SA,Pak & SL [/quote]

For reasons I've already gone into - it wouldn't surprise me if they went out at the Group stage, but then again it wouldn't surprise me if they went to the semis. If I had to bet on one or the other, depending on the odds on offer, I'd take odds of 2-1 them not going through, and probably 6-4 them reaching the semis.

[full_length]

you know that? I'm saying that it would've been closer than it was had Gough at full fitness played. You can't just declare something like that would have happened it is being too specific.

Nopes. I dont know that. Neither did you know before the match that Blackwell would do well.
Since Gough didn't play, there's no saying that his playing would have made the match very much closer. He's played India 6 times in 2001/2 and taken one wicket in each of five matches and two in one match. I don't see Ganguly or Sehwag worrying about him like they would have about Pollock, Donald or Kallis today.
So if you can say he would have run the match a lot closer by himself, I can just as easily say that Laxman would have scored a 150. I just stopped with a Sachin ton

No, because the Australian odds being short more truly indicate their chances of winning than the Indian odds do.

A true gambler would take a horse to win at 6-1 on (a return of 16p for a ? bet) if they perceive the horse is likely to win 99 times out of 100.

At the moment, I see India quoted at about 4 to 1 - meaning if the Tournament were played 10 times, the bookies think India will win it 2 times.

In my view if it were played 10 times, they may win it once, meaning my odds would be 9-1.

Now Australia are about 2-1 meaning they'd win 66 out of every 100. My view would be it's more like 75 or 80 times out of 100, so the 2-1 is generous, so I'd be more likely to take it.

That is why I say gamblers would not touch India - the volume of "mug" punters betting on them drives the price down so that it is not indicative of their chances.

Does that explain my reasoning?

That's an everyday gambler. A true gambler would look for a chance to make the big buck. And for this tournament, India does have the firepower to consistently play well, and win. They've done well in their last few matches against all teams they have played ODIs.
And they are getting better too. You'd want to take odds of 4-1 on India the way they are going. And nobody cares about things like "India will win the tournament 2 times if it's played 10 times". That's just mathematics. Things are much more complex than that.

aussie_beater was also on the mark

When I said "judgement" I was talking of our judgement of whether India will win after the semifinals. Luck ?! duh!

The percentage is not "false". It just means that things are unpredictable vis a vis the other three teams. It is very much "true" that India has a good win percentage. It is simply "unknown" what India can do against Aus, SA and Pak from statistics. Here's where "judgement" comes in.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by full_length

Nopes. I dont know that.

Amazing how snipping 2 words out of a sentence can completely change the meaning.

[marc71178]

That's an everyday gambler. A true gambler would look for a chance to make the big buck.

You've got that the wrong way round - the everyday punter goes for the "big buck" - the true (successful, almost professional) gambler looks for the value.
For me 4-1 India is not value.
[/quote]

[masterblaster]

Im not sure why, but I think everyone should give credit where credits due, I think the sudden "INDIAN WINNING" has taken every one by surprise especially English supporters.



Anyway well done India, Im proud of my country and proud of my team. Well played

[wahindiawah]

I have my sympathies with english fans, u have to understand their pain.The team that was supposed to be "As good as anyone", has been thrashed and kicked off in the first round!

[full_length]

Originally posted by marc71178

Amazing how snipping 2 words out of a sentence can completely change the meaning.

Yes, I've noticed that. AND THIS POST CONTINUES. (mod.s that was only for someone with a particularly severe case of self-serving selective blindness.)
marc, it's also amazing how seeing one part of the story, dogmatically (aah! now I know what a rainy day fan is like ) can twist a single statement to mean ten different things. Did I hear earlier from someone (else) that the native speakers of English do a better job of comprehension (uh.. you chaps got it wrong there too..)?
Well, for your benefit (GET THOSE GLASSES..) here's the rest of the post:

********************************

Neither did you know before the match that Blackwell would do well.
Since Gough didn't play, there's no saying that his playing would have made the match very much closer. He's played India 6 times in 2001/2 and taken one wicket in each of five matches and two in one match. I don't see Ganguly or Sehwag worrying about him like they would have about Pollock, Donald or Kallis today.
So if you can say he would have run the match a lot closer by himself, I can just as easily say that Laxman would have scored a 150. I just stopped with a Sachin ton
*********************************

Tell me if you still don't understand what's meant here. i have some time tonight. I can take you through it word by word.

(hint hint: the idea is that if you can say that IF Gough played all the remaining Indians would have trembled and crumbled in terror, I can say that no, IF Gough had played and IF he had got the 2-19 (that Neil proposed. Ah what foresight.. no wait.. hindsight.. no what IS it? Just yet another hypothetical statement from a rainy day English fan who will come out even when England loses to say that no IF ONLY...) Sachin and Laxman would have got a ton. )

[marc71178]

The reason I didn't answer anything to the rest of the post was that I agreed with it in the main - the bit I disagreed with was misquoting me.

[full_length]

I didnt misquote you.