See all Hill’s Booker odds here.

Hills cut Wolf Hall from 12/1 to 2/1 favourite after a string of large-ish bets (in book award betting terms, at least) were placed on Mantel’s book by “literary insiders”.

Does that mean the book can be backed as though defeat was out of the question? In short, no.

The Guardian’s Charlotte Higgins attributes Mantel’s steaming to favouritism to the respect Mantel, who has never won the Booker before, has within the publishing industry. She claims there is a feeling that Mantel will be chosen above previous winners like J M Coetzee, William Hill’s original favourite.

That’s all well and good, except that awards bestowed by judging panels don’t necessarily work like that.

Music’s Mercury Prize is a good example. In 2007, Arctic Monkeys and Dizzee Rascal – both previous winners of the award – were overlooked by the judges in favour of Klaxons. But it’s worth noting that so was the more populist Amy Winehouse and, last year, her fellow Brit School songstress Adele and perennial festival favourites British Sea Power, the Last Shadow Puppets and the massive Radiohead.

Plenty of people would have loved to see Radiohead win the award, judged on their career as a whole. But judging panels are a funny, idiosyncratic lot, and they gave the 2008 Mercury Prize to the frankly awful Elbow instead.

Mantel winning would be akin to Sebastian Barry, who for a time was last year’s Booker favourite, winning this year. As it was, Aravind Adiga – originally a 14/1 shot – won the 2008 Booker Prize.

It’s a wide-open longlist again this year, and it’s probably wise to read the books in question – rather than blindly back your favourite author – and make a judgement based on your own idiosyncrasies and preferences.

That’s what the judges will be doing come December.

Bookmaker William Hill had made Netherland its favourite for the prestigious book award – but neither it, nor Salman Rushdie’s The Enchantress of Florence, which was second-favourite in the betting – has made the judge’s final list.

Instead, Sebastian Barry’s The Secret Scripture occupies the new favourite’s spot at odds of 2/1.

“We were convinced that the winner would be either Joseph O’Neill or Salman Rushdie and are amazed that neither even made the shortlist,” said Hills spokesman Graham Sharpe on Tuesday.

Netherland’s failure comes despite the universality of its appeal (surely everyone can identify with a book about cricket in post-9/11 New York?) but its subject matter may well guarantee it success in another field.

At the time the long list was announced, Sharpe announced that Hills felt Netherland could be the first book to win both the Booker Prize and the William Hills Sports Book of the Year.

Did the bookies’ pricing up of the book award betting market reflect their own opinions of the novel rather than its real chances of scooping the Booker?

If so then Netherland must be in with a good chance of winning the Sports Book award, which has often taken an esoteric view of sports literature, given that Sharpe sits on the award’s judging panel.

Yes, some years the Bookie Prize has been won by a populist biography, but the Hills judges try and reward serious writing wherever possible.

That, for me, makes Netherland the front runner for the Bookie Prize, despite its ejection from the Booker.

Netherland, with its story about oil investors and cricket in post-9/11 New York, pips Salman Rushdie’s The Enchantress of Florence to favouritism. Rushdie’s novel is a 4/1 shot.

Tom Rob Smith’s Child 44 is 6/1 third-favourite. Smith’s thriller was a heavy favourite to win the Desmond Elliott book award earlier this year, although that gong that subsequently went to Nikita Lalwani for Gifted.

The rest of the card reads:

8/1 Sebastian Barry – The Secret Scripture
8/1 Linda Grant – The Clothes on Their Backs
10/1 Mohammed Hanif – A Case of Exploding Mangoes
10/1 Amite Gosh – Sea of Poppies
14/1 Arvin Amiga – The White Tiger
14/1 Michelle de Kreutzer – The Lost Dog
16/1 John Berger – From A to X
16/1 Steve Toltz – A Fraction of the Whole
20/1 Gaynor Arnold – Girl in a Blue Dress

Hill’s spokesman Graham Sharpe said, “Although Salman Rushdie is the man in form having won the Booker of Bookers, that book is now over 20 years old and his recent work has not been winning literary awards.

“Joseph O’Neill’s novel Netherland has been creating a real buzz and is also being suggested as the first novel to become a serious contender for the “Bookie Prize” – the William Hill Sports Book of the Year – and for that reason we believe it is a worthy favourite.”

You’ve got to get your bets in quick, says William Hill – because as soon as the winner is known, they’re likely to stop betting on the award.

One report reads into Hills’ admission that “the winners of events [like] the Oscars and the Booker Prize … are often decided days in advance”.

Spokeswoman Jennie Prest said, “If a market is decided by a judging panel somewhere then they could have decided four or five days before the award is presented”.

Hills recently carried on accepting bets on the “Best of the Booker Awards” up to the day of the presentation event – even though Salman Rushdie, the eventual winner, was trading at odds of up to 1/30 (30-1 on) on betting exchange Betfair.

However, they have previously had to close the book on Booker Award betting because a surge in relatively big-money bets has suggested the eventual winner has become known.

In 2002 they had to stop taking bets after the Booker winner was inadvertently announced on the organisation’s website a day before the literary prize was awarded.

Midnight’s Children, winner of the 1981 Booker Prize and a 25th-anniversary “Booker of Bookers” in 1993, was being quoted as the 6/4 favourite by William Hill yesterday. The book had been favourite to win from the moment the book award odds were announced.

Rushdie said, “I’m absolutely delighted and would like to thank all those readers around the world who voted.

“It’s very exciting and gratifying, the more so because so many of the voters were so young. I’m very happy to think that Midnight’s Children continues to be relevant.”