Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Dec 09 14:55
Date Joined: 22 Aug 03
| Topic/replies: 23 | Blogger: henryjames.'s blog
Pause Switch to Standard View 400 1st innings, teams dont lose, Lay...
Show More
Report Lix December 8, 2009 3:12 PM GMT
You cant start a new thread about about your old thread!

Boooooooo!!!! Poor form :(

Good shout though :)
Report mafeking December 8, 2009 3:16 PM GMT
yep right this time but far from certain these days. probably didn't happen 10 times in test history before 2000. well over double figures this decade.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 3:28 PM GMT
Would agree, you would do better to show a bit more sophistication than simply relying on a rule that revolves around whether a team achieves a totally arbitrary milestone for you to place a bet.

Mind you, had England not managed over 400 in that 2005 Edgbaston test batting first and nothing else in the match changed they would have lost rather than won, so there might be something in it. :)
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 4:55 PM GMT
my point really was whoever the oppo, if 400 1st innings the other side can never be 1.5
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 5:28 PM GMT
I wouldn't say never, but this one was a fair enough assessment.

Adelaide is probably one venue you wouldn't want to be applying your theory to without first thinking very strongly about it. In the last 9 tests at this venue ddating back too 2000, you find these results that would trouble your system for your system:

2000 - WI bat first score 391 nad lose by 5 wickets in about 350 overs

2002 - England bat first and score 342 and lose by an innings+ in around 315 overs

2003 - Australia make 556 and lose by 4 wickets to India in around 420 overs

2005 - Wi make 405 and lose by 7 wickets in around 280 overs

2006 - England score 556 and lose by 6 wickets to Australia in the last session

Now that is 5 matches where teams lost scoring over 400 first innings OR would still likely have lost had they got evenwell over 400. 5 from 9 matches. So from that we are entitled to say your thread title is totally wrong, and that a pre match price of 1.3x moving to 1.5x on conceding 450 fast runs is not outrageous.

We all have our own methods of course and yours has worked well for you on this occasion so well done. ;)
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 5:47 PM GMT
Very interesting stats, there are 4 by the way not 5, the 2002 England 340 is not 400.

I should have made my point clear from the beginning that 400 does not equate to 1.5 for the other side.

doubt AUS (with the World champion side) were 1.5 2006 after ENG scored 550

and Aus would have been 1.5 not India after there 450.

Teams do lose with over 400, you have proved that convincingly but the oppo surely can not be oods on at that point ?? tell me your thoughts

What would be your estimated prices for your stats for the team batting 2nd ??
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 6:07 PM GMT
Just dealing with the England 340 odd score first, yes it is not 400 or even really close, but you can basically tell from the shape of that match that even had they scored 450 they would have lost by plenty and with good time to spare.

I think your pricing policy might serve you better where a lot of factors are unknown, say the ground doesn't have much history. But these main Australian grounds have a lot of repeating history and basically all host one test at a similar time of year every year.

I agree with you the Australian price was too shot under 1.6 after the first innings, but this was not because a team making over 400 first innings couldn't lose. It had more to do with assessing the events of this particular match and weighing the teams up against each other. WI had selected a team for a draw basically, batting deep with only 3 frontline bowlers. It was clear from the first innings that the Australians were not going to easily master the WI batting lineup second time around unless something changed dramatically. A study of recent domestic matches at this ground informed us that batting day 4 had not been noticeably tougher than earlier days this season. Mitchell Johnson was bowling poorly and later there was a cloud over Siddle, Hauritz is a good bowler when batsmen are attacking him but finds it tougher when they are keeping him out. These are the type of reasonings I would have applied. I didn't think WI would get 20 wickets so I was keeping the draw onside early. Later I switched most of my profit to Australia when I thought they were underrated in the chase.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
Henry, had Australia been a true 1.3x shot pre match then I think that maybe 1.65-1.75 after the first innings was correct. I had backed the draw earlier though as I didn't think Australia were a true 1.3x shot early in the match. I must admit to not being a total expert at trading match odds, it probably shows, but I could just see the error in your assumptions here and I thought I would point it out to you.
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 6:51 PM GMT
thanks for the reply, all valid points,

I attempted to instigate this very debate from the beginning. Adelaide is clearly a ground where 400 is not 400 and is generally regarded as the best pitch on earth.

I would like to know however though how many teams have lost since 2000 after scoring 400 in 1st dig ?

Lay the draw in Perth
Report scliffor December 8, 2009 7:32 PM GMT
Obviously this worked out and agree that Aus were a bit short after WI innings, however, only one WI batsman did much in the 2nd innings and without him the game may have finished in 4 days.
Report mafeking December 8, 2009 7:56 PM GMT;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team;view=innings

there you go. a full list of every score over 400 in the 2000s. 15 scores of 400+ batting first have lead to defeat by my reckoning.
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 8:14 PM GMT

so 15 in last 9 years, that we accept was the turning point for the faster paced test cricket.

80 test approx a year total

720 / 15 = 48/1 average probability loss after 400

AUS 1.55

I rest my case
Report mafeking December 8, 2009 8:18 PM GMT
more like 40 per year. only england and australia play 10 tests or more generally. looking at the instances that when it happened think 2 were by bang and a lot of the others by australia and at least 3 by the exceptional england side from 2003-2005.
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 8:29 PM GMT;id=2009;type=year

70 odd plus around 5 before new year
Report henryjames. December 8, 2009 8:29 PM GMT;id=2009;type=year

70 odd plus around 5 before new year
Report Lix December 8, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
LOL! '70 odd' tests in 2009? :^0

Head in hands man needed here :0
Report oddduck December 9, 2009 1:19 AM GMT
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539