Originally posted by 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?