Tips for Tikay

[horseplayer]

VC are out of order with the Smith bet. Their rules say he must play at least one down which he did and more, he just didnt record any stats in the downs he played. They incorrectly settled it as void but resettled it when i pointed out the error. It seems that they might simply be settling them correctly but only when contacted to say the have settled incorrectly.

So they know the market was settled wrong, should be resettled as a winner if you contact them but havent bothered to actually just resettle the market in the first place. Smith played downs in the game, you need to contact VC via the online help if they have voided the bet and explain it has been voided incorrectly.

Now settled as a winner.

Therefore we will have a "bonus" £50 profit within today's numbers, which will be included in tomorrow's Daily Report.

The tip was by Bobby1 who strikes again on NFL, thanks. .

a prime example of why you should always check every bet you place online

a few years ago i spotted a few mistakes (if you can be generous)

well done bobby

[tikay]

T20 Ireland v West Indies

At the start of the tournament I felt that this game had the potential to be the first round upset and I still feel that way. I may look foolish in recommending Ireland as Gayle hits 130 but I feel the price on Ireland is too big. Ireland will have a simple game plan- get Gayle out cheaply and then see off Narine. In Stirling and Joyce Ireland have 2 batsmen capable of a big score and get them at a fast rate.

If they can get Gayle out then the West Indies are capable of crumbling, the whole saga of having him in and out of the side is ludicrous and can not help team spirit. We have seen from the Australia match that the West Indies bowling attack, Narine excepted, is woeful and give runs away.

This is not one to risk the kids uni fees on but if you find a couple of quid down the back of the sofa then put it on Ireland at 9-1. If it comes off Mr Tikay even you may be won over by the delights of  3B cricket.  ( Bish Bash Bosh )

Ireland to beat West Indies £10 @ 9-1 Sporting Bet.

Ireland to beat WI? Wow hector, you don't 'arf find some against the tide stuff!

You have an astonishing record, so we must to go with it. I can't see them winning, but it is 9/1, & that does look to be a "value" price. If it became a rain-affected slog-fest, who knows how it will all pan out?

Me, won over by B-B-B cricket? Ain't gonna happen, sorry. There is an easy way to determine "proper" cricket - do they wear whites? If they do, it's proper cricket. Garish colours & those oh-so-common & tacky football-style shirt numbers are for B-B-B.

Incredibly (stomach bugs ftw?) the price is now 12/1 (TWELVE to ONE) with Blue Square.

We have £10 @ 12/1, Ireland to beat the West Indies today.

ON


Selection Ireland @ 12/1 
Market
 Match Winner
 
Event
 ICC World Twenty20
11th Match - Ireland v West Indies
2012-09-24 15:00:00
 
Bet Type
 
Bet Type
 Win Single
 
Unit Stake
 £10.00
 
Number of Units
 x1
 
Total Stake
 £10.00
 
Time and Date Placed
 2012-09-24 12:24:27
 
Receipt Number
 O/0891659/0000087
 

[bobby1]

VC are out of order with the Smith bet. Their rules say he must play at least one down which he did and more, he just didnt record any stats in the downs he played. They incorrectly settled it as void but resettled it when i pointed out the error. It seems that they might simply be settling them correctly but only when contacted to say the have settled incorrectly.

So they know the market was settled wrong, should be resettled as a winner if you contact them but havent bothered to actually just resettle the market in the first place. Smith played downs in the game, you need to contact VC via the online help if they have voided the bet and explain it has been voided incorrectly.

Now settled as a winner.

Therefore we will have a "bonus" £50 profit within today's numbers, which will be included in tomorrow's Daily Report.

The tip was by Bobby1 who strikes again on NFL, thanks. .

I'm still annoyed that Cassel fell 1 1/2 yards short, tho it would have taken a perfect ending to the game and then overtime to get there. He threw a pass to Dwayne Bowe that would have got us home much earlier in OT, he rose like a salmon got both hands on it and dropped it as he came back to earth, which was a pity.

[Snowball]

Looks like their is Rain around in Sri Lanka again, who did you place the Bet with Tikay?
I know with Hills that if less than 17 overs per side are Bowled the Sixes Bet will be void.

[tikay]

Special Promotion Alert

Blue Square state this, in the "promo box" at the top of their home page.....(which explains how I got 12/1 Ireland).

This may be useful for future T20WC bets. They have other "specials" on the T20WC, too.


 HAPPY 2 HOURS:
For 2 hours running up to the toss of every World T20 Match we will be betting the Match Winner book to 100%.

[tikay]

Looks like their is Rain around in Sri Lanka again, who did you place the Bet with Tikay?
I know with Hills that if less than 17 overs per side are Bowled the Sixes Bet will be void.

Thanks. It is with Blue Square.

If it's void, so be it, we get our money back. Guess there will be some T & C's about it somewhere.

[TightEnd]

Tonight the Seattle Seahawks play the Green Bay Packers on Monday Night Football

Lets a start with a quote

"Your decision to lock out officials with more than 1,500 years of collective NFL experience has led to a deterioration of order, safety and integrity. This affirmative decision has not only resulted in poor calls, missed calls and bad game management, but the combination of those deficiencies will only continue to jeopardize player health and safety and the integrity of the game that has taken decades to build.''

From a NFL Players Association Executive Board letter to the NFL's 32 owners on Thursday, sharply critical of the league's continued lockout of the 120 regular game officials.

What's that got to do with the price of bananas?

Well, in Week 2 of the NFL season we saw a two standard deviation event. For statisticians, the equivalent of rocking up to a poker table and finding yourself seated next to Kelly Brook in comely mood.

What was that two standard deviation event? Well its to do with Home field advantage (HFA)

In week 1 the average HFA was 3.2 net points, and in week 2 it was 8.7 net points. As I write, Week 3's average is -1.0 net points through 15 games.

Week 1 was close to the long term trend of a 2.5 net point advantage for the home team, and Week 3 tilted slightly toward the visitors. But week 2 showed a large advantage for home teams.

We know there is week-to-week variance in net scores for home teams, but how far from ordinary is 8.7 net points for the home team in a single week?

Since 2000 the standard deviation for weekly average HFA is 4.0 points, and the average is 2.5 points as above, which means week 2's 8.7 is over 2 standard deviations from the mean (p=0.40)

Why might this be?

Well one reason being postulated is that the inexperienced referees are very susceptible to home crowds, and thus inferring a greater home advantage than normal.

Obviously if so, this is a small sample size

Intuitively though, I'm onside. Watching back the games, there are a lot of bad calls, and more often than not they go in the home teams favour.

On we go then

Seattle. QWest field. One of the noisiest home atmospheres where the crowd is known as the "12th man"

"The 12th man is Seattle is highly prized by the Seattle Seahawks organization. The Seahawks have actually retired the number 12 in honor of Seahawks fans and in the north endzone before each game a #12 flag celebrating the twelfth man is raised prior to kickoff. Seahawks fans come dressed in Seahawks colors, they invoke the wrath of the 12th man for every defensive series"

It's loud

The referees are inexperienced

and finally, the team is improving. (Week 2 Seattle 27 Dallas 7. Home advantage in an "even" game. Dallas Cowboys through 3 games have the number one ranked defense in football in several categories. Week 1 Arizona 20, Seattle 16, Arizona now unbeaten at 3-0)

Several years of poor performance has given them change to rebuild, especially on defense. They have a premier running back too in Marshawn Lynch.

I looked at playing the unders, because the combination of that Seattle defence, and a rookie Seattle QB against the Green Bay pass rush screamed unders to me. Except that the spread is 44.5, which is low. Its priced in

So instead we are given an opportunity

http://www.oddschecker.com/american-football/nfl/green-bay-packers-at-seattle-seahawks/winner

Seattle 17/10 BoyleSports is a mis-price of this team in this stadium with these referees and, most importantly the strengths of Seattle against Green Bay

I have it as an even money game, the spread is +/-3.

Here's a reasonable prediction of the game

http://www.athlonsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-vs-seattle-seahawks-preview-and-prediction

I suggest £50 Seattle to win (outright) BoyleSports 17/10. Hopefully if agreed we are going to take on a favourite, a favourite that Joe Punter loves, but in conditions the favourite will not love.

[The Camel]

Comparing the net points HFA of the results as compared the pre match spread might be interesting?

[TightEnd]

Comparing the net points HFA of the results as compared the pre match spread might be interesting?

Yes. Need to find where to get the historic spreads and compare with the HFA data (which is available) and then spare a few days!

Problem is the sample size here for replacement refs is a bit small, no very small. Intuitively though it feels right, and Seattle at home is as good a place as any to see if it is right.

[TightEnd]

raining in Colombo btw, time to check the T and C's of the BSQ Sixes bet.

[Doobs]

In week 1 the average HFA was 3.2 net points, and in week 2 it was 8.7 net points. As I write, Week 3's average is -1.0 net points through 15 games.

Week 1 was close to the long term trend of a 2.5 net point advantage for the home team, and Week 3 tilted slightly toward the visitors. But week 2 showed a large advantage for home teams.

We know there is week-to-week variance in net scores for home teams, but how far from ordinary is 8.7 net points for the home team in a single week?

Since 2000 the standard deviation for weekly average HFA is 4.0 points, and the average is 2.5 points as above, which means week 2's 8.7 is over 2 standard deviations from the mean (p=0.40)

This doesn't strike me as a whole lot of evidence.

You have a 3 week average of just over 3.5 vs a long run of 2.5.  I don't like using one week's evidence, when you have 3 weeks to go on.  Someone came to see me at work with that, they should get fairly short shrift.  I'd view this as very little evidence at all of a change in trend.

There appears to be an error in your calcs too: Assuming 4 is the correct standard deviations, then 2.5 + 2 standard deviations is 10.5,  8.7 is less than 10.5.  

Of course, none of this shows it isn't a bet, just shows the evidence isn't as strong as we think.

[The Camel]

Comparing the net points HFA of the results as compared the pre match spread might be interesting?

Yes. Need to find where to get the historic spreads and compare with the HFA data (which is available) and then spare a few days!

Problem is the sample size here for replacement refs is a bit small, no very small. Intuitively though it feels right, and Seattle at home is as good a place as any to see if it is right.

There were at least 3, maybe 4 double digit home favourites in week 2, which would account for some of the lopsided scores.

Not saying there isn't merit to your suggestion, but it might well factored into the price.

[TightEnd]

In week 1 the average HFA was 3.2 net points, and in week 2 it was 8.7 net points. As I write, Week 3's average is -1.0 net points through 15 games.

Week 1 was close to the long term trend of a 2.5 net point advantage for the home team, and Week 3 tilted slightly toward the visitors. But week 2 showed a large advantage for home teams.

We know there is week-to-week variance in net scores for home teams, but how far from ordinary is 8.7 net points for the home team in a single week?

Since 2000 the standard deviation for weekly average HFA is 4.0 points, and the average is 2.5 points as above, which means week 2's 8.7 is over 2 standard deviations from the mean (p=0.40)

This doesn't strike me as a whole lot of evidence.

You have a 3 week average of just over 3.5 vs a long run of 2.5.  I don't like using one week's evidence, when you have 3 weeks to go on.  Someone came to see me at work with that, they should get fairly short shrift.  I'd view this as very little evidence at all of a change in trend.

There appears to be an error in your calcs too: Assuming 4 is the correct standard deviations, then 2.5 + 2 standard deviations is 10.5,  8.7 is less than 10.5. 

Of course, none of this shows it isn't a bet, just shows the evidence isn't as strong as we think.

thank you there is an error. 2sds is 10.5

[The Camel]

Plus the very best of the replacement refs will be used for MNF I would think.

[Snowball]

raining in Colombo btw, time to check the T and C's of the BSQ Sixes bet.

Seems to be the result  on the sixes stand if their's an official result.
Completed match on Betfair is trading at 1.44, good news is that Ireland are now best priced 9/1