Archive for William Hill

On the West Indies Winning

Posted in Cricket with tags , , , , , on August 30, 2017 by telescoper

Back in the office after a rather chaotic Bank Holiday Weekend during which, among other things, I managed to mislay my phone, I couldn’t resist a short post about yesterday’s victory by the West Indies over England at Headingley. I don’t often write about sporting events that I haven’t attended in person, but I thought I’d make an exception in this case for the reasons I’ll outline below.

The first is that, although England will be hurting after losing a game many expected them to win comfortably, I think this result is great for cricket.  Before this game I was gearing up to write a post wondering why there seem to be so few close Test matches these days, the previous series and the first one in this series having been quite one-sided. Although the West Indies won this one fairly comfortably in the end – by five wickets with several overs to spare, it still counts as `close’ in my book because the final day started with any result possible. That doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it makes for a marvellous experience. I wish I had been there. Long may five-day Test matches endure!

Shai Hope, whose beardpower led the West Indies to victory  (Photo credit: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Secondly, I am not as critical as some of Joe Root’s decision to declare on 490-8 on Monday evening, leaving the visitors 322 to win. He obviously hoped to knock over a  couple of West Indian wickets in the six overs left to play that evening, but that didn’t happen. However, as long as no significant time was lost to the weather (which it wasn’t), that decision meant took the draw out of the equation. If the Windies batted all day on the last day – a big `’if’ – they would comfortably score the runs as only a shade over three an over was required. It’s one of the fascinating curiosities of cricket that maximising the chance of winning by declaring  can also maximise the chance of losing.

In the end, England’s bowlers didn’t perform to their best on the last day and, while many expected the batsmen to feel the pressure, it was England that seemed to crack, losing their cool in the field and dropping a couple of important catches. Crucially, Jimmy Anderson just didn’t get the ball to swing enough to be the threat that he can be. The other likely match-winner, Moeen Ali, did not bowl well either. But let that take nothing away from the excellent performance by the West Indies batsmen, especially Shai Hope (above), who looks a super player. Well played to him, and the rest of his team!

Incidentally, England’s 2nd innings score of 490 for 8 (declared) is the largest Test innings ever in which no batsmen has scored a century. Not a lot of people know that.

I have to admit that I was a bit saddened by the manner of the West Indies defeat in the First Test at Edgbaston because they looked so outclassed. So many of my boyhood sporting heroes were from the West Indies (including such illustrious names as Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Michael Holding, Joel Garner, and Malcom Marshall to name but a few) that it was painful to think of the team fading so badly as a force in Test cricket. They seem to have been in decline for some years, but perhaps the comeback starts now. I certainly hope so. The game is richer for having the West Indies as a force.

Finally, on the result. As regularly readers of this blog will know, I’m not averse to placing the odd bet now and then. When Joe Root declared I had a look at the website of Mr William Hill and noticed that the West Indies were 12/1 against to win the match. Largely based on England’s lacklustre bowling in  the first innings (with the exception of James Anderson), the strong batting performance by the West Indies in their first innings,  and the draw having been eliminated from consideration, I decided to put a pony (£25) on a West Indies win.  I had a look at the betting markets along with the score now and then throughout the day yesterday. The available odds changed throughout the day: at 84 for 2 the price was 8-1, at 101 for 2 it was 5-1, at 169 for 2 it was 13/10 and by the time they passed 200 the West Indies were favourites at 11/10 on (England 4/1 against).

At one game apiece with the West Indies on a high,  it’s all set up nicely for the deciding match of the series at Lord’s next week!

 

Betting on the Supreme Court

Posted in mathematics with tags , , , , , , , on December 6, 2016 by telescoper

This week the UK Supreme Court is hearing an appeal by HM Government against the judgment recently delivered by the High Court which was that the UK Government must seek the approval of Parliament before it can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and thus begin the process of leaving the European Union. You can watch the proceedings live here. I had a brief look myself this morning but as I’m not a legal expert I found it rather hard to follow as it’s rather technical stuff. That wasn’t helped by the rather dull delivery of James Eade QC who was presenting the government’s case. Nevertheless, it is a very good thing that we can see how the law work in practice. I was surprised at the lack of gowns and wigs!

Although Eade seemed (to me) be on a very sticky wicket for some of the time, it’s impossible for me to come to any informed inference about who’s likely to win. Out of interest, to see what other people think, I therefore had a quick look at the betting markets. Traditional bookmakers (such as William Hill) are offering 1-3 (i.e. 3-1 ON) for the original decision being upheld so they’re clearly expecting the appeal to fail.

These days, however, I’ve started to get interested in other kinds of betting markets, especially the BetFair Exchange. This allows customers to act as bookmakers as well as punters by offering the option to “lay” and/or  “back” various possible bets. “Laying” betting means effectively acting as a bookie, proposing odds on a particular outcome. i.e. selling a bet.  “Backing” a bet means buying a bet. The exchange then advertises this to prospective bettors who sign up of they are prepared to stake money on that particular outcome at those particular odds. It’s very similar in concept to other trading services, e.g. share dealing. Matches aren’t always made of course, so not every bet that’s offered gets accepted. If that happens you can try again with more generous odds.

The advantage of this type of betting is that it represents an “efficient market”. Such a market occurs when all the money going into the market equals all the money being paid out in the market – there is no leakage or profits being taken. Efficient betting markets rarely exist outside of betting exchanges – bookmakers need to reap a profit in order to run a business. For example, though William Hill is offering 1-3 on the Supreme Court ruling being upheld, the odds they offer against this outcome are 12-5. These are not “true odds” in the sense that they can’t represent a consistent pair of probabilities of the two outcomes (as they don’t add up to one). In the case of an exchange market a bet laid at 1-3 is automatically backed at 3-1. These can then be regarded as “true odds”.

This is what the BetFair Exchange on the Supreme Court hearing looks like at the moment (you might want to click on the image to make it clearer):

 

supreme-court

The odds are given in a slightly funny way, giving the gross return for a unit stake (including the stake). In more normal language “4.3” would be 100-30, i.e. a £1 bet gets you £3.33 plus your £1 back. A bet on “overrule” at “4” (3-1) corresponds to a bet against “uphold” at 1.33 (1-3), reflecting what I was saying about “true odds”.

The first thing that struck me is the figure at the top right: £38,427. This is the value of all bets matched in this market. By BetFair standards this is very low. A typical Premiership football match will involve bets at least ten times as big as this. As in the court case itself there just isn’t very much action!

Apart from that you can see that the odds here are broadly similar with William Hill etc with implied odds around 3-1 to 4-1 against overruling.

Before you ask, I’m not going to bet on this myself. My betting strategy usually involves betting on the outcome I don’t want to happen. Although I think Parliament should be involved in Article 50 I am just happy that this matter should be left to our independent judiciary to decide.