Biggest test series upset of all time

[Molehill]

Well you're wrong. They were actually closer to 5/1 at betfair before the first test

BBC SPORT | Cricket | Ashes 2005

Visit BBC Sport for all the action as it happens - up-to-the-minute news, results, breaking news, video, audio and feature stories. BBC Sport covers the major events and all the professional football clubs in the UK, plus cricket, rugby, golf, tennis, motorsport and all the main world sports.

news.bbc.co.uk

Betfair was such an unreliable betting platform at the time, god knows why the BBC used them as a reference. You could get some random muppet offering 5-1 for a maximum bet of £3 and that would be the best price available. It really wasn't the market price.

Cricinfo was advertising England as 3-1 to win the Ashes (Bet 365) on January 11th 2005. It should be noted at that time that England were tied 1-1 in SA before they would go on to win that series. I suspect that 3-1 was not available after that and 5-2 was a more likely price.

Yes, Australia started favourites, but this was undeniably the two best Test Teams at the time with the Number 2 at home. That doesn't make for a massive upset in my book.

England 3/1 to bring the Ashes home | ESPNcricinfo

 

[wpdavid]

As posted in another thread, here are the biggest series upsets I have found so far:

1. New Zealand beating India away in 2024/25: 33.42 point difference between the two sides.
2. Sri Lanka beating South Africa away in 2018/19: 33.29
3. India beating England away in 1971: 30.07
4. India beating West Indies away in 1970/71: 29.56

Let me know if you want any others checked.

Did the Indian team fly straight to England after touring the West Indies in 1971? That was a vintage year for Indian cricket.

Can you check England and WI before the 1950 series please.

 

[peterhrt]

Did the Indian team fly straight to England after touring the West Indies in 1971? That was a vintage year for Indian cricket.

There were a couple of months between the two tours. Before 1971 India had played 47 away Tests and won three - all in New Zealand. They had never beaten West Indies anywhere. To win series in the Caribbean and England within a few months was a major achievement, especially with spinners bowling three-quarters of their overs.

England were due to visit the sub-continent in 1971-72 but the tour was called off due to the security situation in the region. That freed up several international cricketers to represent the Rest of the World in Australia.

 

[reyrey]

Betfair was such an unreliable betting platform at the time, god knows why the BBC used them as a reference. You could get some random muppet offering 5-1 for a maximum bet of £3 and that would be the best price available. It really wasn't the market price.

Cricinfo was advertising England as 3-1 to win the Ashes (Bet 365) on January 11th 2005. It should be noted at that time that England were tied 1-1 in SA before they would go on to win that series. I suspect that 3-1 was not available after that and 5-2 was a more likely price.

Yes, Australia started favourites, but this was undeniably the two best Test Teams at the time with the Number 2 at home. That doesn't make for a massive upset in my book.

England 3/1 to bring the Ashes home | ESPNcricinfo

Respectfully you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. I worked in the betting industry at the time and Betfair odds are by far the most accurate when it comes to liquid markets. So much so that most bookmakers set and adjust their odds using Betfair price.

Also you are quoting an article dated Jan 2005 which means those were the odds were 7 months out.

 

[sledger]

NZ winning anything is usually an upset tbh, let alone an entire series in India.

 

[Molehill]

Respectfully you have no knowledge of what you're talking about. I worked in the betting industry at the time and Betfair odds are by far the most accurate when it comes to liquid markets. So much so that most bookmakers set and adjust their odds using Betfair price.

Also you are quoting an article dated Jan 2005 which means those were the odds were 7 months out.

England were 3-1 to win the Ashes in Jan 2005. After that they won in SA and then drew the One Day series with Aus. In that they showed there was little between the teams and they were bang up for the battle. The only direction that price was heading was down.

I'm starting to wonder if it was you who was offering the 5-1.....

 

[reyrey]

England were 3-1 to win the Ashes in Jan 2005. After that they won in SA and then drew the One Day series with Aus. In that they showed there was little between the teams and they were bang up for the battle. The only direction that price was heading was down.

I'm starting to wonder if it was you who was offering the 5-1.....

That was just the deluded English mindset though.

Now I understand this guy

 

[Molehill]

Now I understand this guy

Which country were you working in the betting industry? The prices I quoted were in England. Even if English cricket fans were deluded (there's enough evidence to suggest they weren't), the UK Betting Industry were clearly not.

Also, using TJB as a reference is not the win you might think it is.

 

[reyrey]

Which country were you working in the betting industry? The prices I quoted were in England. Even if English cricket fans were deluded (there's enough evidence to suggest they weren't), the UK Betting Industry were clearly not.

Also, using TJB as a reference is not the win you might think it is.

Betting odds for big sporting events are typically the same all over the world to avoid a thing called arbitrage. Again respectively you don't have enough knowledge to be talking about this.

I worked like 10 minutes from Lords

The fact TJB is right is what makes this whole worse. Again you can check my post in this thread to see I am one of the biggest fans of that 2005 English side.

Best England side of this century

I'm sorry but Trescothick, Strauss and Vaughan (even though he never really reached his best whilst captain) absolutely were top class batters.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Days of Grace]

Bangladesh 2-0 Pakistan?

How could I have missed that?!

Update:
1. Bangladesh beating Pakistan away in 2024/: 37.76 point difference between the two sides.
2. New Zealand beating India away in 2024/25: 33.42
3. Sri Lanka beating South Africa away in 2018/19: 33.29
4. India beating England away in 1971: 30.07
5. India beating West Indies away in 1970/71: 29.56

 

[Molehill]

Betting odds for big sporting events are typically the same all over the world to avoid a thing called arbitrage. Again respectively you don't have enough knowledge to be talking about this.

I worked like 10 minutes from Lords

The fact TJB is right is what makes this whole worse. Again you can check my post in this thread to see I am one of the biggest fans of that 2005 English side.

Best England side of this century

I'm sorry but Trescothick, Strauss and Vaughan (even though he never really reached his best whilst captain) absolutely were top class batters.

www.cricketweb.net

Yeah, I do actually. One of my biggest wins was actually an arbitraged bet on a Wimbledon's Ladies Singles Final in 2005 (Venus v Davenport, and if you know what happened in that Final you'll know how glad I was to not care who won - ironically, I was at Lord's that day for the Eng v Aus Nat West Final!!).

Here's another quote from The Age in Feb 2005..... "The best price on offer about Ricky Ponting's men is $1.55, with England priced between $3.75 and $4.50 to end a losing streak". So even in Australia where there was no delusion, they were going somewhere between 11-4 and 7-2.

But essentially it seems we agree. This was a high quality England team and this was certainly no great upset.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How could I have missed that?!

Update:
1. Bangladesh beating Pakistan away in 2024/: 37.76 point difference between the two sides.
2. New Zealand beating India away in 2024/25: 33.42
3. Sri Lanka beating South Africa away in 2018/19: 33.29
4. India beating England away in 1971: 30.07
5. India beating West Indies away in 1970/71: 29.56

I assume Pakistan beating England this series should be a reasonable difference too, considering Pakistan's rating would've dropped after the Bangladesh loss.

 

[reyrey]

Yeah, I do actually. One of my biggest wins was actually an arbitraged bet on a Wimbledon's Ladies Singles Final in 2005 (Venus v Davenport, and if you know what happened in that Final you'll know how glad I was to not care who won - ironically, I was at Lord's that day for the Eng v Aus Nat West Final!!).

Here's another quote from The Age in Feb 2005..... "The best price on offer about Ricky Ponting's men is $1.55, with England priced between $3.75 and $4.50 to end a losing streak". So even in Australia where there was no delusion, they were going somewhere between 11-4 and 7-2.

But essentially it seems we agree. This was a high quality England team and this was certainly no great upset.

No you really don't know enough. Professional arbitrators typically avoid arbitrage in Tennis because different jurisdictions and different bookmakers have different rules on player retirement/forfeit during a match. This leads to a possibility where you can actually lose a lot of money.

You also clearly don't understand overround /margin /vig in bookmakers odds vs betfair exchange odds which doesn't use this. Hint, his is why betfair odds are more accurate.

 

[Days of Grace]

I assume Pakistan beating England this series should be a reasonable difference too, considering Pakistan's rating would've dropped after the Bangladesh loss.

This was offset by Pakistan being at home, though. The difference between the two sides was 13.21.

 

[Molehill]

No you really don't know enough. Professional arbitrators typically avoid arbitrage in Tennis because different jurisdictions and different bookmakers have different rules on player retirement/forfeit during a match. This leads to a possibility where you can actually lose a lot of money.

You also clearly don't understand overround /margin /vig in bookmakers odds vs betfair exchange odds which doesn't use this. Hint, his is why betfair odds are more accurate.

You don't know the details of the bet (I literally could not lose under any circumstances), will take it offline and ping you a mail.

 

[ankitj]

Vote: The biggest Test series upset of the 21st century

Where does New Zealand beating India stand in the biggest series upsets of the 21st century?

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[GIMH]

TJB is obviously wrong that it was a deluded England mindset. We did win, so factually there were no delusions.

 

[Slifer]

If NZ sweep this series, then it'll be the biggest upset and most unexpected test series win in my lifetime.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I worked in bookmaking finance for 4 years back in the mid/late 2000s and Betfair certainly wasn’t considered the font of all knowledge at the time where I worked. It was considered but certainly not to the extent that the bookies were fixing the price for all FOB based on betfair prices. Particularly for local events. More attention was placed on the activities of known industrial-scale betters and their individual activities. Note that I wasn’t doing the bookmaking, but I was doing a load of statistical analysis on the side to determine book exposures and risks on particular outcomes for the whole of the fixed odds book at the time; all of which required external review (by people that didn’t understand any of it, I hasten to add)

 

[reyrey]

I worked in bookmaking finance for 4 years back in the mid/late 2000s and Betfair certainly wasn’t considered the font of all knowledge at the time where I worked. It was considered but certainly not to the extent that the bookies were fixing the price for all FOB based on betfair prices. Particularly for local events. More attention was placed on the activities of known industrial-scale betters and their individual activities. Note that I wasn’t doing the bookmaking, but I was doing a load of statistical analysis on the side to determine book exposures and risks on particular outcomes for the whole of the fixed odds book at the time; all of which required external review (by people that didn’t understand any of it, I hasten to add)

Most betting markets on betfair aren't very liquid. Most bookies also have their betting markets up long before betfair so they need to actually do some bookmaking, but when markets are highly liquid and are very close to the event then it all basically follows betfairs exchange. Some bookies even use exchanges now to offset liabilities rather than use more traditional bookmaking.