I am being “offered” 4-1 on condition that I pay out at 7-1 if my bet doesn’t come in. The implied book here has a big hole in it, it’s the wrong way round.
Look at it this way; if these were offered side by side, someone could take you up on both and win every time.
Either we’re talking past each other or one of us doesn’t understand something (and I’m prepared to believe it’s me, but you haven’t yet posted anything to convince me that’s the case).
Of course, but that doesn’t change the odds or the argument much.
Not at all - things like the results so far are precisely why the correct odds (before a ball was bowled) were around 4-1 against. Now these results are in, clearly the true odds are a great deal more than 4-1 and I’d be foolish to bet on those terms even without your suggestion of a return 7-1 bet.
I think that’s a rather unfair assumption to make. Yes, I’m glad I didn’t bet on it now that it looks more likely to be a losing bet. But had I done so, of course I would have paid up. I understand betting is not guaranteed. In fact, I would have paid my stake over ASAP (ideally before the start of the tournament) and then expected to be paid back (or not) once the outcome was known. I would also have limited my stake to something I wouldn’t worry about never seeing again if my ‘bookmaker’ didn’t keep to their side of the bargain.
Sorry for the sidetrack - in the cricket, I thought 180 looked a decent total, but the fact remains it is very difficult to bowl consistently well at a batsman in form in this format. In Tests (and to some extent 50 over games) you can frustrate the batsman by bowling outside the off stump, or throw in the odd very short ball, etc. But a lot of these are likely to be called as wides or no balls in T20, and no-one is yet good enough to bowl perfect yorkers all the time, so bowlers tend to get hit all over the place. Hence the earlier comment from someone about using spinners more and more - that could well be correct, especially on subcontinental pitches.
I predict SA will be the overall winners, just based on their side having enough batting firepower to overcome any deficiencies in their bowling attack. Though one would have hoped the same would be true of England. Oh well.