"100/1 On"

[Alan Robertson]

The 'Jillaroos' are 100/1 (on) to beat England at the weekend - with a very-well-known bookmaker. I don't recall previously seeing such one-sided odds in a rugby league match.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the 'reasonableness' of these particular odds?

(I'm looking at this 'mathematically', as opposed to considering a bet).

 

 

[gingerjon]

Not seen in rugby league but I have seen 1/1000 in handball and thought it was generous.

On the one betting app I have on my phone, it looks like there aren't match odds available for this game.

Given that the only way the Jillaroos don't win is if they go to the wrong stadium then the odds, once they reach 'no chance, really' numbers will be right.

[sam4731]

I think it's saw shorter odds for England to beat San Marino. Surely there were shorter odds during the world cup too. Giving 1/100 for NZ to beat Jamaica would've been worth sticking your life savings on.

[Damien]

Australia are streets ahead. I think the women's game in this country has come on a long way and standards have risen enormously. However the gap is still as wide as ever because the game in Australia is just getting better and better all the time too.

I always think its pretty pointless backing any team that is 1/100 as the return is miniscule and just doesn't justify the risk.

[Leyther_Matt]

Some of the Challenge Cup games will have had odds like that. Tbf it’s essentially the reason that the handicap exists. Would fully expect the Jillaroos to win by 60+ in all honesty. The levels of professionalism are light years apart, not to mention the player pool. The key is to narrow the gap over the coming years as much as possible.  

[sam4731]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Australia are streets ahead. I think the women's game in this country has come on a long way and standards have risen enormously. However the gap is still as wide as ever because the game in Australia is just getting better and better all the time too.

I always think its pretty pointless backing any team that is 1/100 as the return is miniscule and just doesn't justify the risk.

Until the game in this country goes full time, we won't be able to close the gap.

[muckymunksy]

About right Aus are really good England are terrible. 

[Farmduck]

48 minutes ago, Alan Robertson said:

The 'Jillaroos' are 100/1 (on) to beat England at the weekend - with a very-well-known bookmaker. I don't recall previously seeing such one-sided odds in a rugby league match.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the 'reasonableness' of these particular odds?

(I'm looking at this 'mathematically', as opposed to considering a bet).

 

 

Ignore the merits of the game and just look at the arithmetic of bookmaking. If 99% of the money is going on Team A then they will always be 1/100 even if half of them are multiple amputees and the other half have never played any organised team sport before.

All those years when Qld dominated SOO, it was surprising how often NSW went in as favourites. It was because there are more gamblers in NSW than in Qld and more of them bet with their hearts than with their brains.

There aren't too many games you can use to build a form line. Australia's last 3 games have been 24-4 and 14-0 over NZ and 84-0 over PNG. England's last 3 results were 82-0 and 60-0 over Wales and 64-0 over France. Those games are all within the last 2 years so we might assume the lineups will be roughly similar.

One thing in England's favour is that the OZ season hasn't started yet. They could be a bit rusty at the start so a couple of early scores might rattle them. Maybe.

 

[Alan Robertson]

I think the odds are about right too; it's good to hear the thoughts of others though.

I can't find data/information about the heights and weights of several England players but I'd speculate that the average size of the Aussies is 'much bigger' than England's.

I don't think Grace Kemp, who plays Origin, has been selected for this match but she is 6 ft 2 and nearly 100 kg. Apps is 6 ft. A significant proportion of the squad are 5 10+ and (unsurprisingly) a greater proportion are at least 5 9. Combine this with the speed, power and skill of the Jillaroos and it could be a 'very long' 80 minutes.

I hope that I'm wrong, I suspect that I'm not.

[Father Gascoigne]

Leicester were 5,000-1 in 15/16. 

One bloke backed them at £4. Imagine taking such (edit: urine) that you walk out the bookies with £20k and your first thought is to find the nearest bridge.

If you are going to back a team with long odds as those of the English women's RL team, you gotta go big. Nothing short of £5,000 is worth the trouble in this instance. 

 

 

Edited February 26 by Father Gascoigne

[Damien]

31 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Ignore the merits of the game and just look at the arithmetic of bookmaking. If 99% of the money is going on Team A then they will always be 1/100 even if half of them are multiple amputees and the other half have never played any organised team sport before.

All those years when Qld dominated SOO, it was surprising how often NSW went in as favourites. It was because there are more gamblers in NSW than in Qld and more of them bet with their hearts than with their brains.

There aren't too many games you can use to build a form line. Australia's last 3 games have been 24-4 and 14-0 over NZ and 84-0 over PNG. England's last 3 results were 82-0 and 60-0 over Wales and 64-0 over France. Those games are all within the last 2 years so we might assume the lineups will be roughly similar.

One thing in England's favour is that the OZ season hasn't started yet. They could be a bit rusty at the start so a couple of early scores might rattle them. Maybe.

The English season ain't started either.

[Sainthamish]

If my memory serves me correct, I think Wigan were 1/200 to beat Sheffield Eagles in the 1998 challenge cup final.

[Griff]

28 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Leicester were 5,000-1 in 15/16. 

They're long odds, not short odds.  And a twenty way bet.

Completely different scenario.

[The Masked Poster]

7 minutes ago, Sainthamish said:

If my memory serves me correct, I think Wigan were 1/200 to beat Sheffield Eagles in the 1998 challenge cup final.

They possibly could have been somewhere but the odds I got were about 19/2 or thereabouts. I remember thinking it was decent odds in a two horse race and was pleasantly surprised by the returns from a £10 bet. Of course this was before online gambling was so huge and you had to actually go to the bookies to place a bet! 

[Griff]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

They possibly could have been somewhere but the odds I got were about 19/2 or thereabouts. I remember thinking it was decent odds in a two horse race and was pleasantly surprised by the returns from a £10 bet. Of course this was before online gambling was so huge and you had to actually go to the bookies to place a bet! 

Again, different scenario.  They're odds for the underdog.

[sentoffagain2]

10 minutes ago, Sainthamish said:

If my memory serves me correct, I think Wigan were 1/200 to beat Sheffield Eagles in the 1998 challenge cup final.

   Best price for Eagles was 14/1 to win the Final  so 1/200 looks far too short .Probably 1/20 or 1/25.

[The Masked Poster]

31 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Leicester were 5,000-1 in 15/16. 

One bloke backed them at £4. Imagine taking such (edit: urine) that you walk out the bookies with £20k and your first thought is to find the nearest bridge.

If you are going to back a team with long odds as those of the English women's RL team, you gotta go big. Nothing short of £5,000 is worth the trouble in this instance. 

 

 

Not sure that makes sense. Leicester had next to no chance of winning the PL, only their most dedicated fans would even entertain the idea of putting £2 on them. However they did win it and the bet was well worth it. 
Likewise betting on the English women's team would be like sticking £1 on fully expecting it to be wasted.

[The Masked Poster]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

Again, different scenario.  They're odds for the underdog.

I fully appreciate that but it's still good odds for a two horse race, regardless of any other factors. Especially if you think that one of the horses has a better chance than stated. 

And I was only responding to the posters query.

Edited February 26 by The Masked Poster

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

 
And I was only responding to the posters query.

Which was "have you seen shorter odds than 1/100?".

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   Best price for Eagles was 14/1 to win the Final  so 1/200 looks far too short .Probably 1/20 or 1/25.

Ah - the voice of reason.

[Damien]

22 minutes ago, Sainthamish said:

If my memory serves me correct, I think Wigan were 1/200 to beat Sheffield Eagles in the 1998 challenge cup final.

It doesn't, they were no where near that.

[Eddie]

47 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Leicester were 5,000-1 in 15/16. 

One bloke backed them at £4. Imagine taking such (edit: urine) that you walk out the bookies with £20k and your first thought is to find the nearest bridge.

If you are going to back a team with long odds as those of the English women's RL team, you gotta go big. Nothing short of £5,000 is worth the trouble in this instance. 

 

 

What??? 

[Eddie]

14 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Not sure that makes sense. Leicester had next to no chance of winning the PL, only their most dedicated fans would even entertain the idea of putting £2 on them. However they did win it and the bet was well worth it. 
Likewise betting on the English women's team would be like sticking £1 on fully expecting it to be wasted.

No you have to put £5k on to make it worthwhile apparently  

[The Masked Poster]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

Which was "have you seen shorter odds than 1/100?".

Er, it was the odds on the Sheffield-Wigan CC Final 1998. Maybe re read it. 

[The Masked Poster]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

Ah - the voice of reason.

So he's the voice of reason for saying pretty much the same thing I did?