Tips for Tikay

[DungBeetle]

"Where was hedging mentioned?"

Well if one poster puts "Federer through - bring on Murray"
And the next says "We are backing Murray in the semi?"
And the reply is "Opinions are welcome  - we have Federer at 5-1"

That looks like a hedging discussion to me.  You are correct that the Federer bet is irrelevant if Murray is a value price, but the above narrative doesn't allude to that.

[Tal]

Is Finn ever going to rectify this, seems to happen at least once a Match to him and no other Bowler seems to have this problem.
I have seen a Batsman hit a four and be punished by it.

Suspect they'll have him working on it after this tour. The bowling coaches spent long enough with Jimmy to change his action quite significantly.

[maldini32]

I can't see the point in Fred backing Federer outright and then attempting to hedge his matches against both Murray and Djokovic??

It was thinking out loud, really.

We got on Federer on the mistaken premise that he would miss Murray until the Final, or at least we thought as much.

Had we known he was sure to face Murray earlier, the bet would not have been placed, or as I recall.

So we are in a bit of a spot now, but not hopeless by any means.

We are on at 5/1, he is 7/2 now, so we are the right side, if nothing else.

The prices for the Murray - Federer game are.....

(4/6 Murray, 11/8 Federer)

http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/australian-open/mens/andy-murray-v-roger-federer/winner

We are a lot better than that price suggests as we backed him ew at 1/2 the odds. He gets to the final were in profit and in for a nice freeroll.

The bit about him not facing Murray was half of my reasoning as at the time Paddy hadn't reacted to the fact Nadal had pulled out.

I'm letting my own bet ride.

[tikay]

Re. the Pujara bet in this ODI series:

If he doesn't play at all will any firms be refunding bets a la 1st goalscorer markets?

Ladbrokes Rules say.....


Series top batsman or top bowler markets are settled on an 'all in play or not' basis.

And....


"All in" or "All in play or not" markets are markets that have been priced up to reflect the fact that the selection may not take any part in the event. Therefore if your selection does not play, or take part in the event, your bet will stand as a loser.

[BigAdz]

Im all for letting any bet Vs Murray ride.

Never liked the miserable sod.

Sorry, not objective, but very satisfying.

[class]

Cricket bet looks to be on life support!!

[TightEnd]

Cricket bet looks to be on life support!!

Finn and Tredwell apart, we have not bowled well enough I am afraid

Shrug and move on

[millidonk]

Im all for letting any bet Vs Murray ride.

Never liked the miserable sod.

Sorry, not objective, but very satisfying.

I am on Fed, but am worried, Murray winning AND costing me money will hurt so much more

[gherkin]

Cricket bet looks to be on life support!!

Finn and Tredwell apart, we have not bowled well enough I am afraid

Shrug and move on

Yep, Finn was our best bowler by a long way, the rest of them were pretty poor...  Surely now Dernbach will get dropped

[Bad Beat]

 My memory is getting worse these days, maybe someone else can help me as Google was a bit useless.

 I remember Super Bowl XXV as being a disaster day for the books. The Giants (a very popular team with the ice-creams) were playing Buffalo (an unfashionable lot for everyone who didn't live in Buffalo). The Giants were a 7 point fav. Scott Norward missed a 46 yd fg attempt wide right as the clock expired and the Giants won 20-19. I remember many sportsbooks went broke but in my memory it was because the number fell on 3 and the total 37 (the two most likely numbers in any game) and the books got middled. I know the total opened 40.5 so I guess the books got middled there and the second half total was 17 so I don't see how that could have done them.

 Can anyone tell me why it was so bad?

 Super Bowl XIII is the other one that gives bookmakers nightmares to this day. The Steelers were favourites over the Cowboys. With the line being over the key number of three bookmakers varied depending on their opinion and what action they were seeing. Some made the Steelers 3.5 and others made them 4 or 4.5. If you were a bookie who took Steeler money at 3.5 you might move to 4 and maybe 4.5 if you took more. If you were getting Cowboy money at 4.5 you would move to 4 or 3.5. With 4 being a less key number bookies were happy to move the prices around. Every Cowboys punter got either 4 or 4.5 and every Pittsburgh player had 3.5 or 4.

 The final score was 35-31 and the bookies either paid out or gave the money back on virtually every bet.

 In answer to the other question - each spread number (each handicap line) corresponds to a % chance of the team winning the game outright or if you like to a fixed odds or money line price.

 Sorry if I made things complicated - I was trying not to. Feel free to ask me to try and do a better job on any bits I explained badly.

[tikay]

Cricket bet looks to be on life support!!

Finn and Tredwell apart, we have not bowled well enough I am afraid

Shrug and move on

Exactly that, we can't get every bet right, we just need to get enough right so we can stay in the blue.

The India - England series has not been good for us, & we missed the Tredders suggestion, too.

Next case.

[Karabiner]

Re. the Pujara bet in this ODI series:

If he doesn't play at all will any firms be refunding bets a la 1st goalscorer markets?

Ladbrokes Rules say.....


Series top batsman or top bowler markets are settled on an 'all in play or not' basis.

And....


"All in" or "All in play or not" markets are markets that have been priced up to reflect the fact that the selection may not take any part in the event. Therefore if your selection does not play, or take part in the event, your bet will stand as a loser.

I suspected that the risk of him not playing was reflected in the odds of 10/1.

No harm in a little straw-grasping when the alternative is abandoning one's children.

[tikay]

Re. the Pujara bet in this ODI series:

If he doesn't play at all will any firms be refunding bets a la 1st goalscorer markets?

Ladbrokes Rules say.....


Series top batsman or top bowler markets are settled on an 'all in play or not' basis.

And....


"All in" or "All in play or not" markets are markets that have been priced up to reflect the fact that the selection may not take any part in the event. Therefore if your selection does not play, or take part in the event, your bet will stand as a loser.

I suspected that the risk of him not playing was reflected in the odds of 10/1.

No harm in a little straw-grasping when the alternative is abandoning one's children.

Yes, I suspect we may have got outfunk on this occasion. We'll be back......

[The Camel]

I'm not going to get in a big argument or get cross about this, but suffice to say I disagree with an awful lot of what Neil says about the Superbowl.

Especially the triple maximum bet on 49ers.

I hedged a good proportion of my San Francisco position last night by backing Baltimore +4 -110.

Everyone needs to do what suits them. I think now is the time to hedge, but Neil obviously thinks it's time to press up.

It's completely up to you.

[BigAdz]

My memory is getting worse these days, maybe someone else can help me as Google was a bit useless.

 I remember Super Bowl XXV as being a disaster day for the books. The Giants (a very popular team with the ice-creams) were playing Buffalo (an unfashionable lot for everyone who didn't live in Buffalo). The Giants were a 7 point fav. Scott Norward missed a 46 yd fg attempt wide right as the clock expired and the Giants won 20-19. I remember many sportsbooks went broke but in my memory it was because the number fell on 3 and the total 37 (the two most likely numbers in any game) and the books got middled. I know the total opened 40.5 so I guess the books got middled there and the second half total was 17 so I don't see how that could have done them.

 Can anyone tell me why it was so bad?

 Super Bowl XIII is the other one that gives bookmakers nightmares to this day. The Steelers were favourites over the Cowboys. With the line being over the key number of three bookmakers varied depending on their opinion and what action they were seeing. Some made the Steelers 3.5 and others made them 4 or 4.5. If you were a bookie who took Steeler money at 3.5 you might move to 4 and maybe 4.5 if you took more. If you were getting Cowboy money at 4.5 you would move to 4 or 3.5. With 4 being a less key number bookies were happy to move the prices around. Every Cowboys punter got either 4 or 4.5 and every Pittsburgh player had 3.5 or 4.

 The final score was 35-31 and the bookies either paid out or gave the money back on virtually every bet.

 In answer to the other question - each spread number (each handicap line) corresponds to a % chance of the team winning the game outright or if you like to a fixed odds or money line price.

 Sorry if I made things complicated - I was trying not to. Feel free to ask me to try and do a better job on any bits I explained badly.

Makes a lot more sense. I think when it comes to AF, I am happy leaving the advice to the Elders. I am happy in my judgement of who I think is the better team, but the nuances of lines/spread handicapping are still a bridge too far.

Keep up the good work. Happy to keep learning