shetlandbairn Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 England are 3/1 to win the first test and Steve Harmison is 16/1 to be man of the match... so I assume that would be 48/1 for both of that to happen. Might put a fiver on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Insight Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 No sir 16 x 1 = 16 + 1 stake = 17 17 x 3 = 51 +17 (stake) = 68 Its a 67/1 double! I assume you don't bet much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Insight Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Anyhoo my bet 100 for the 1st test at evens 500 on australia outright at 8/13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandbairn Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 They wouldn't let me put on my bet of England to win and Harmison to be man of the match so I ended up just sticking a fiver on England to win at 3/1... only put a little on after hearing they hadn't beaten the Australian's at Lords in 71 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BishyTON Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 They wouldn't let me put on my bet of England to win and Harmison to be man of the match so I ended up just sticking a fiver on England to win at 3/1... only put a little on after hearing they hadn't beaten the Australian's at Lords in 71 years. 597412[/snapback] Probably wise, considering they are well on their way to losing the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Insight Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Well thats the 1st test out the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart. Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 They wouldn't let me put on my bet of England to win and Harmison to be man of the match so I ended up just sticking a fiver on England to win at 3/1... only put a little on after hearing they hadn't beaten the Australian's at Lords in 71 years. 597412[/snapback] Yes, that bet would be a related contingiency (or something like that), meaning that if Harmison had been motm then the chances of England winning would be better. This is the same reasoning that you can't bet a double on say, Alan Shearer to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0, if Shearer did score first the chances of Newcastle winning 1-0 greatly increase, hence the scorecast prices are shorter than the double would be. Do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thefamousphilosifer Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Yes, that bet would be a related contingiency (or something like that), meaning that if Harmison had been motm then the chances of England winning would be better. This is the same reasoning that you can't bet a double on say, Alan Shearer to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0, if Shearer did score first the chances of Newcastle winning 1-0 greatly increase, hence the scorecast prices are shorter than the double would be.Do you understand? 602180[/snapback] that isn't always the case. For the obvious examples(Alan Shearer to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0, if Shearer did score first the chances of Newcastle winning 1-0 greatly increase, hence the scorecast prices are shorter than the double would be) that is usually correct, but for the unexpected it isn't. For example: for tomorrow(Falkirk v ICT), Andy Lawrie first scorer and Falkirk to won 1-0 is 87/1 as a double. As a scorecast, however, its 180/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.