• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
mundaneyogi said:
Only? That's an excellent return! Most pro betters only bother with odds around $1.10, if that.
Click to expand...
No, most pro betters only gamble if they think the odds are right.

They calculate their own perceived odds and then if they're shorter than what's quoted they'll bet.

In the case of Prince, he'd got a ton 4 times out of 5 scores past 50, so you'd think the odds of him converting are better than to say he converts 2 out of 5.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
mundaneyogi said:
Only? That's an excellent return! Most pro betters only bother with odds around $1.10, if that.
Click to expand...
It was $1.50 because he was already on 72 and the pitch was flat as a pancake. I doubt very much that the odds had much to do with his excellent conversion rate, which is the sole reason why I jumped on board.

The reason I said "it only paid $1.50" was because it was far from a bet you brag about with a huge smile on your face. I've won bets at $3.50 and $4, and they definitely feel a lot better. When I woke up and saw Prince had tonned up, I was happy that I won a bit of money, but its not like it was a brilliantly thought out bet or anything.

I guarantee you most pro-betters don't only bet with odds of $1.10, some may, but with those I've chatted to, its all about what one personally thinks about what the odds shall be (based on history, state of the match (or whatever you're betting on) and gut feeling). My gut said that Prince is one of those players that will do everything he can to get to triple figures, as he's a battler. History said he'd get there based on his conversion rate, state of the match said NZ were basically playing for nothing as the match was dead, so they wouldn't be bowling their heart out nor was the pitch going to favour them anyway. All signs pointed to 'bet' ;)
 
Last edited:
Langeveldt

Langeveldt

Soutie
I can't believe they are playing on the Highveld at this time of year, its going to get dark even earlier, light is going to be a serious problem
 
Dick Rockett

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
marc71178 said:
No, most pro betters only gamble if they think the odds are right.

They calculate their own perceived odds and then if they're shorter than what's quoted they'll bet.

In the case of Prince, he'd got a ton 4 times out of 5 scores past 50, so you'd think the odds of him converting are better than to say he converts 2 out of 5.
Click to expand...
Alright, you smart alecs ;) - that's you too Jono :). I know the ins and outs, just wanted to make a short post without going into the detail of exactly how pro gamblers go about winning their money. $1.10 is about right for an "average" return for those guys.

I'm well aware of what it takes - I made a decent pile myself betting in the NRL a few seasons ago, betting on short-priced favourites. From my personal experience, a $1.50 return was quite a windfall. Anyway, that was before the NRL got so unpredictable as to make it not worthwhile.

I don't bother with cricket, personally. Too many variables.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
mundaneyogi said:
Alright, you smart alecs ;) - that's you too Jono :). I know the ins and outs, just wanted to make a short post without going into the detail of exactly how pro gamblers go about winning their money. $1.10 is about right for an "average" return for those guys.

I'm well aware of what it takes - I made a decent pile myself betting in the NRL a few seasons ago, betting on short-priced favourites. From my personal experience, a $1.50 return was quite a windfall. Anyway, that was before the NRL got so unpredictable as to make it not worthwhile.

I don't bother with cricket, personally. Too many variables.
Click to expand...
Yeah cricket bets do backfire sometimes. I've had a few good bets still result in losses, despite me doing everything right. A random tailend partnership may ruin a bet "Team innings to score under this" and a run out from nowhere can ruin a "Player to score 100 or more" bet. I still enjoy betting on cricket though generally do prefer betting on Aussie Rules footy down here.

I randomly bet on the snooker championship final the other day. Had money on Dott (had no idea who he was before hand) when he was 4-1 frames up on Ebdon early. I don't really know the rules of snooker, but he looked in control and apparently Ebdon was already a previous champion so I figured it'd be a good bet for odds since Ebdon was favourite. I went to bed when Dott was looking like he was going to crush Ebdon, he was something like 14-7 frames up but the match was taking too damn long. When I woke up I saw my online balance and noticed I won. I then checked the score and apparently Ebdon made a late surged and almost stole the victory. That would have ruined my day.

That was obviously not one of my smart bets since I had absolutely no idea about the players. :p

I do agree though that $1.50 is a good payoff for a favourite, and I generally do hop on board. With my Prince bet though, whilst $1.50 was generous seeing as Prince was already on 72 and the pitch was flat as a pancake (plus with his great conversion rate), I would have liked higher odds. Its not like I was betting on Ponting or something :p
 
thedarkmullet

thedarkmullet

School Boy/Girl Captain
You could see that coming though, its unlikely the pitch up at Jo'burg is gonna be another road. I reckon Mills should've been in the attack all along, Martin hasn't really looked that troubling for the batsmen so far on the tour.
 
TT Boy

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Weather forcast from Yahoo 'Sunny, Windy' high's around 18 celsus and the extened forcast looks promising no sign of rain. Though the light is going to be a big factor in this test match you would expect.

Possiblities for South Africa tomorrow, Pollock looks likely to return and there is a strong chance Andrew Hall will play for either Nicky Boje or Andre Nel. Hall's nothing more than a filler, his an adhesive that the South Africans can never get rid of but his selection is not bad in this case, considering how substandard Nel has been. Who after making a hissy fit over his dropping in the first test, did nothing to suggest he should be anywhere near the starting line up (currently).

Word on the pitch is that it's green and should be tough to bat on.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Styris should've been in at 3.


Somehow, I don't think there will be a 450 run partnership between Astle and Fleming with them both posting double hundreds.

Although that would be really really awesome!
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can understand Pollock not opening, but why would he be bowling behind Andrew Hall!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top