Is it a related bet? Top TEAM wicket taker/Series winner

[Horneris]

Hi all, help me settle an argument with my father in law. I'm not confident to go back and say hes defo wrong so thought i'd ask first.

He understands that if the bet he wanted was for Top SERIES wicket taker and Australia to win the ashes than it would obviously be related, but the bet he wants is for top Australian Wicket taker in a double with Australia to win the Ashes.

Stephen:

Been trying to put on a bet for Aus to win the ashes, and Michel Starc to be top AUSTRALIA wicket taker of the series. None of the bookies allow this bet as a double (I can back each as a single)

Had my be been Austalia to win the Ashes and Michel Starc to be top SERIES wicket taker I could understand why a double was not allowed, as it Aus has the biggest wicket taker of the series then it would be more likely that they win the ashes- so the outcome of one bet affects the other. (I think the techical term for this is a related contingency- and quite logically bookemakers do not allow accumulators where this is concerned)

However the bet I desire to place, which is not allowed, does not have a related contingency. Michel Starc being the top AUSTRALIAN wicket taker has no bearing on the series, as, even if Australia were whitewashed re;aistically they would have taken some wickets, so the top Australia wicket taker is a bet the outcome of which has no bearing on the outcome of the series.

Clearly it's fallen in the "too difficult to think about" box, and the bookmakers IT systems cannot cope with it, so a perfectly reasonable (and fair) double is not allowed

Brent:

I suspect it's not going to be a popular theory but I think you could argue that despite it being the top team wicket taker market that it is still a related bet to a small degree. I'd have thought that a top player such as Starc being bang in form and winning that part of the bet makes it more likely that Australia win the ashes and therefore the double price wouldn't be fair. But as a counter I'm thinking that someone has to be the top Aussie wicket taker if they win it and it's not the same bet.

I'm trying to think of it in terms I'm more used to. Could you back Kane to be Top England goalscorer and England to win the Euros in a normal double? I'm not so sure I'd expect to be able to do so. Surely if he's our top scorer and not Harry Maguire we're more likely to win the tournament. But again, someone has to be our top scorer.

I'm sure you could email in asking for 'requestabets' if you wanted to go down that route.

Stephen:

Brent,

One event has absolutely no bearing on the other.  Australia will have a best bowler irrespective of whether they win lose or draw the series, and  they will win, lose or draw the series irrespective of who their best bowler is!

Cheers

[arbboy]

I think there is a correlation to a certain level.   If an outsider was to win this market i think it would be less likely the Aussie have won the series because an outsider generally would only win if they didn't take many wickets and therefore by default didn't win many games.   The converse is probably also true.   It is a small correlation but i definitely think it exists.

Also if he is placing it online most IT systems will auto block these doubles.

[kukushkin88]

Your reason for why it’s a RC is basically sound. The additional points I would make are that Starc will mostly open the bowling, wickets at the top of the innings are favourable for the Aussie win. On all known info Starc will take his wickets at a better strike rate than someone like Lyon, again something that is favourable to the Aus win outcome.

[teddybloat]

Who australia's best bowler is affects the performance of Australia.

I'd say that statement is true


Imagine the other way and use an extreme example : Betting that their opening batsman is the top wicket taker and them losing the ashes is surely related

And the point about him facing England's best batsman is a clincher

[Horneris]

Thanks guys