Jump to content

blue4578

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blue4578

  1. It's probably no exaggeration to say I've watched over half of Murray's 853 career matches. Definitely the best British sportsman I have seen in an individual sport. Very sad to see him struggling but he can be proud of all the success he has had and the enjoyment he has given everyone watching.
  2. Will be interesting to see what happens, but they'll never get it down to £2.
  3. I apparently hadn't signed in here since January, but just happened to notice this. I've never said that winning at betting is easy, because it isn't. I've had my fair share of stupid bets and there are some sports where I cannot make a profit despite trying (the NFL springs to mind). There are two main things to remember above all else I think: Betting always comes down to simple probability and your ability to estimate the chance of something occurring (ie a team or player winning) Discipline is everything. It is far easier to lose than win, so if you have no discipline you have little chance of winning long-term There are no secrets. I do have a maths degree, but then I've never used anything more than you'd learn doing GCSE maths to bet on football (baseball would be different). If I could put my finger on one helpful attribute, it is being able to look at lots of different information and process it all in your head to make decisions. I have always been able to do this, even when I was 13 or 14. Given a bit of mathematical knowledge, and having followed football (and looked at football odds) for a long time, then being able to estimate the probabilities of teams winning comes fairly easily to me. Other sports are far harder for me to be successful at. I would say if you've been betting for a while and you feel like you're not getting close to cracking it, then you need to be honest with yourself about why. You can't just wake up and decide to be good at something. Past experience and knowledge are all important. Statistics are absolutely fundamental. If you're trying to bet without them, then you're basically guessing. You can of course use the statistics in a million different ways.
  4. van de Velde could've made far more from losing the Open that what the first prize was. Looking at tennis, you don't even have to lose. Imagine a scenario like this; you have one of the very top players playing an early match in a grand slam event against a no-hoper qualifier. The match is on at prime time so there will be a lot of money in-play. I could lay the top player @ 1.01 before the match, let's say I lay £2million, for which the liability would only be £20,000. The player then just has to feign injury during the first set, look like he is at death's door and unable to walk. He can lose the set easily and then call the trainer. At which point he will be odds against to win, maybe even 5/1 or bigger. I can stick my £2million potential lay profit on him to win. He then comes back on court knowing he will crush the qualifier in the last three sets. I make millions and no one has lost on purpose. All of the stories that abound suggest that this is indeed the case. If you look at the list of champions, there aren't too many realistic candidates.
  5. You could easily name 8 players in the draw almost certainly involved in match fixing. Incidentally it doesn't always involve losing the match (or retiring after the first set is complete so bets stand with Betfair and a lot of bookmakers), but there is a player who has a reputation for losing the first set on purpose repeatedly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35356550 The latest quote on the BBC sums it up well. If the ATP suggest it either hasn't been going on on a large scale or they didn't know about it, then you might as well put Sepp Blatter or Lamine Diack in charge.
  6. I speak to a couple of guys who I've met through the Betfair VIP events, who travel to tournaments sometimes and speak to the trainers and hitting partners. It seems fixing is a lot more common in the men's game than the women's. Nationality plays a part, with players for Russia, Argentina, Italy and a few Eastern European countries arousing most of the suspicion. I would even go as far as to say that the majority of players from Russia and the former Soviet Union who have been ranked in the top 150 in the past 10 years have been strongly implicated in match fixing. I have spoken at length to people at Betfair who have told me about new accounts opening up in Russia and placing £100,000 bets on Russian players to lose. Even some players who got banned, got the decisions reversed: http://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/10025127/potito-starace-and-daniele-bracciali-have-life-bans-lifted Starace is a higher profile player than most who have been suspended. There have been numerous instances of people being banned (always lower ranked players) for betting a few Euros on a match they weren't playing in. As far as PEDs, I am convinced that two male grand slam champions of recent years are as guilty as any of the Russian athletes currently caught up in the IAAF scandal. I believe that the ATP and ITF are probably almost as guilty as the IAAF for covering it up too. To avoid the small chance of being sued for libel, you'll have to work out who it is yourself.
  7. Not if you don't know in advance because the people who do know have manipulated the odds in their favour. The fixers don't lose every match on purpose, but if you know who they are you're just extremely wary about ever betting on them to win. Tennis has a bigger problem with corruption and performance enhancing drugs than any other major sport, and by some distance.
  8. I could have written that article myself. I have been telling people this exact story for years, and just like when it comes to drugs cheats, tennis just wants to sweep it under the carpet. The summer of 2008 was shameful with blatantly fixed matches on an almost daily basis, and nothing done about it. It's not quite as bad, or as blatant now, but tennis is forever just wanting to avoid the scandal that would ensue by tacking the problem.
  9. I was flicking through the Metro paper this morning and happened to notice one of their recommended bets for the weekend. As far as 100/1 shots go, I've seen better ones.
  10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j0br6 The BBC investigated the limiting of certain customers by bookmakers on Radio 5 Live at the weekend, available to listen to for four more weeks.
  11. I did the GSR for the first time at the weekend. I was originally going to do the 10k but the half marathon route looked interesting so I ended up entering and running both races. I'm really glad I did as the half marathon was a nice run that I could appreciate more as I just jogged it really. Will be back next year to give it a proper go, without having run the 10k just before.
  12. Until you earn 1,000 Betfair points to get you a discount. Premium Charge, you have to have paid less than 20% in charges of the amount of your gross profit (commission paid is deducted from total winnings). There is a £1,000 allowance and any big win constituting over 50% of your profits is excluded. You have to have placed at least 250 bets also. For the "super" Premium Charge it is £250,000 in profit and 1000 total bets, with commission generated being less than 40% of your gross profits. Basically not something to worry about until you are several thousands in profit. 1%,whether you win or lose. They actually used to pay layers 0.6% on certain markets like baseball in the good old days. No extra charges that I know of. The margins and limits vary. When markets first open, the margins are higher and limits lower to allow the money to basically dictate where the market is set. I used to arb using Pinnacle extremely extensively going back a lot of years when bookmakers would take bets. I lost hundreds of thousands of pounds at Pinnacle because their markets were much more efficient than bookmakers who had static lines that their traders only altered manually. One decent-sized bet at Pinnacle will automatically shift their line. They make money by having efficient markets so that they are taking bets on all outcomes.
  13. Bournemouth certainly shouldn't be close to Evens to win that game, much too low. Villa currently 4.3 on Betfair. Generally I think Bournemouth are a good bet to get relegated, and may well be the worst of the promoted teams.
  14. I did try and post this the other night, but the site was offline when I hit post. I am happy to write off Nadal, as he is only going to go one way from here in my opinion. I've been telling people since the start of the year he had no chance of winning this tournament. For the first four rounds he had a very kind draw, and would have lost to Murray, Wawrinka and possibly a few others if he had met them I believe. The stat that flashed up near the end of the match was very telling; Djokovic led the forehand winners count 23-3 (may have changed slightly in the last game or two). Three forehand winners in a match at Roland Garros; that's astonishing. Djokovic is currently 1.21 to win the semi-final and 1.37 to win the tournament. I think that underestimates Murray's recent performances. However the pattern against Djokovic head-to-head lately has often been to match him for two or two and a half sets before completely collapsing. Was that mental or physical? I have a sneaking suspicion for a close match, possibly five sets, but then for the past number of years when betting on the French Open I'd have been better off just lighting a bonfire of £20 notes to save time during this tournament. This year I've called it virtually all correctly but not wagered a penny on it. If Wawrinka plays like he did against Federer, and Nadal in Rome, then he can win this tournament also. Djokovic was similarly favoured to win the tournament before he lost the US Open semi-final to Nishikori. Certainly much to play for.
  15. I've had accounts closed within an hour of opening before I'd even placed a bet. Hard to find another explanation for that.
  16. I'm sure I've told this story before here, but I met someone when Betfair took some of their very biggest customers to the French Open at Roland Garros who runs a so-called "exchange shop". I went for a visit to his shop, and it was nominally a licensed betting shop with a counter taking bets. However the owner told me that most weeks he didn't even take £30 in bets over the counter. Once you walked in you noticed maybe 30-40 work stations, each with two screens. One with the raw SIS racing feed, which was accessible in the shop due to it being a betting shop, and the other a computer screen for accessing Betfair. I believe that the SIS feed is around 3-5 seconds ahead of At The Races, Channel Four or any of the other channels showing live horse racing. You can imagine what an advantage that is. The place I visited is not the only such place that exists, and was populated exclusively by young men in their 20's and 30's exploiting the few second advantage they had over people watching on TV. The fact that this "betting shop" in a fairly run down inner city area had a number of Porsches and Ferraris parked outside probably says a lot. Incidentally, people at Betfair told me that the Premium Charge was introduced as a direct result of these in-play traders making too much money while not paying enough commission relative to their winnings, on all sports and not just horse racing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8414887.stm That brings to mind this game, which was televised live on Sky on a Saturday lunchtime. Portsmouth were 1-0 up when Javier Mascherano committed a bad challenge just before half time. He injured himself doing so and needed treatment, so the physio came on. While he was on the ground, the referee was talking to Steven Gerrard and I clearly saw the referee say "he's off". It probably wasn't an absolute certain red card looking at the foul, and the Betfair market was not suspended. Portsmouth were available at something like 2.1 at the time, which I backed, and when Mascherano stood up and was sent off this dropped to about 1.35. You've got to feel marginally sorry for the layers who didn't realise the red card was coming but Betfair markets are very cut-throat and everyone is looking to take advantage. The largest mistake I have ever made was when I was laying baseball on there. I was trying to lay both outcomes on an Over/Under 9.5 runs market. I was trying to lay £1100 @ 2.10. Except in my haste to enter the odds I didn't press down hard enough on the full stop/decimal point key and ended up momentarily laying £1100 @ 21. Before I could cancel, one of the bots people run to take advantage of such mistakes snapped up over £1000 of the amount I was laying. If you can accidentally lay an 11/10 shot at 20/1, you have to be prepared to take advantage when you get the chance. They want everything in their favour, so if you can gain an advantage then this is fair game in my opinion. Getting them to lay a decent bet in the first place is virtually impossible, and if they suspect you have faster information than them you can probably wave goodbye to your account pretty quickly. If you watch Betfair markets at the end of an event you're watching on TV, you almost always get the 1.01 backers and/or 1000 layers piling big money into the market as soon as they know an event has finished. If you're watching on TV, the final whistle or call of game, set, match usually comes a few seconds after the market hits 1.01 or 1000. People are effectively "buying money" by putting down five and six figure sums in order to make as little as £10 or £20. People make a living doing this. It can of course go horribly wrong. There was the time when a team was going for a game-tying field goal in the dying seconds of an NFL game. The officials called it no good and it looked like it had probably gone just wide. Cue the 1.01 backers / 1000 layers piling in. Except that the call was challenged and overturned, and the team that looked like it had lost went into overtime and won the game. Someone probably lost tens of thousands of pounds trying to earn £50. The same happened with an Andy Roddick match at the Rome Masters. He had match point serving for the match and apparently served an ace. The umpire called game, set and match, but while the market went to 1.01/1000 Fernando Verdasco got the umpire to check the mark. The serve was called out, Roddick went on to lose the game and the second set in the tie break. He then lost the final set leaving a decent amount matched on Verdasco to win @ 1000. Spot on. The in-running turnover is much higher on the exchanges, I think generally you have to be an idiot to use traditional bookmakers for betting in-running (there are exceptions, particularly in slow moving sports like cricket or events with lots of breaks in play). The bookmaker can just delay accepting your bet to see if things move to their advantage. If you're using Betfair and plan to bet in-running, you have to be extremely aware of any time delay if you're watching coverage on TV, online or just looking at scores. It even states this in the rules for each market. I've seen first hand how people try to gain an advantage with horse racing and I've spoken to a number of tennis courtsiders. Don't be naive and you won't get burned.
  17. I've been to Wimbledon, the US Open and the French Open and in my opinion Roland Garros is the best venue. Smaller and more intimate than the others, plus I like the unusual attitude of the French crowd.
  18. I've always said on here that Djokovic's best level is better than Murray's. Prior to the 2011 Australian Open final (click) a lot of people were unsure of this, and then Djokovic went on to dominate that year. Totally disagree with the first part of your statement. In my opinion, Andre Agassi was a superior player to Murray and "only" won eight grand slams despite having a supposedly lower standard of opposition. If Murray had been born in 1977, his early 20's would have coincided with Pete Sampras (another superior player) dominating Wimbledon and he would have been only four years older than Roger Federer. His mid 20's to early 30's would have seen him facing Federer at his peak, and he would have lost every grand slam match on every surface against Federer in that situation in my opinion. Perhaps the short period between the Sampras and Federer eras at Wimbledon could have seen Murray challenge when Ivanišević and Hewitt won, but people forget how good Hewitt was for two years playing a not too dissimilar style of tennis to Murray. Murray's early 20's saw him lose to better clay court players at the French Open (Almagro, Fernando González, Ferrer and even Berdych). By the time he had improved slightly on clay, Nadal's era of dominance would have started when Murray had just turned 28 in your alternative universe. Andy Murray born in 1977 might have won three or four grand slams, but he would have got nowhere near ten. Not that we will ever know of course.
  19. I was totally wrong about Wawrinka v Nishikori today. That what's you get if you don't watch all the matches I suppose. Would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Nishikori had made that drop shot at the end and gone 7-6 up in the tie break after being 6-1 down. I didn't see any of the first two sets. Djokovic is 1/4 to win the semi final and about 6/4 to win in straight sets. For someone with a big serve who you'd think should attack the net fairly often, his volleying (off both sides) is hopeless. Some appalling misses today, reminds me of Karlovic as he has poor hands and absolutely no feel around the net. Raonic can dominate against the lesser players as they can't get a decent percentage of returns in play. Against the best players, he will get exposed time and time again. Not something that is easily fixed either.
  20. I've still not seen anything from Raonic to make me believe he can win major titles. Lacking a little something for me and got virtually zero chance against Djokovic. Nishikori will have a much better year than Wawrinka I think and should come out on top in the other match. Wawrinka has shown signs of weakness this tournament that opponents have not been good enough to capitalise upon. Murray currently priced at 1.72, or about 8/11 if you prefer, against Berdych. This seems a very good bet based on what I've seen. You have to give Berdych credit for winning five matches without dropping a set, but if Murray plays like he did this morning I would expect him to win with a little to spare. The only problem would be if his first serve percentage drops below 60%.
  21. It's a difficult one. You have to have liquidity to attract customers, but if you have no customers to start with, where does the liquidity come from? Sporting Options by 2004 were trying to compete with Betfair but were seeding their own markets with money they did not have. They quickly went bankrupt because people were just picking off their good odds and making a lot of money, at Sporting Options' expense as it turned out. Betfair have such a dominant position that it is still hard for anyone else to properly compete. Matchbook have had decent liquidity on some American sports markets over the years, but are seriously lacking everywhere else. I'm not entirely comfortable depositing large sums of money there either as something has always seemed not quite right. The problem with Betfair was the advent of the Premium Charge, brought on because of their floatation. Some people were making enormous sums of money while paying very little commission. Betfair's argument was that it was costing them millions of pounds spent on marketing to replace this money in the exchange so there had to be an additional charge. A lot of these people were tennis "courtsiders" or people otherwise beating the time delay in-running. People not betting in-running should not be subject to additional charges but any exchange that is going to be a success has to make enough money from their commission charges and finding the correct balance is not easy. As you can see with all of Betfair's TV adverts these days, it's all about nonsense stuff like cashing out accumulators because they've decided there is more money to be made from being a bookmaker. Understandable I suppose as most people lose and they have a large customer base to milk. Sadly people who win a lot from gambling have virtually nowhere to turn these days.
  22. Sorry just noticed these questions. Since I wrote that things have changed again. The withdrawal from the UK of Pinnacle Sports on November 1st 2014 makes betting on American sports and tennis much more difficult for me. In fact betting on anything is tricky now. I'm right at the threshold of Betfair's Premium Charge, most bookmakers won't take a bet (or at least not for more than pocket change) and other exchanges have no liquidity. I was betting heavily on baseball and tennis at one point, but I stopped needing the money so the antisocial hours saw me give those up even before Pinnacle Sport's withdrawal. Not at all. The only problem for me is getting bets on. The mechanics of betting is just the same, except perhaps the bookmakers aren't as clueless on certain lower leagues as they were 10 years ago. Bookmakers make too much money from idiots, games of chance and poker. They won't take bets from anyone who remotely looks like they know what they're doing. Betfair's exchange is slowly going down the toilet as it doesn't make them enough money, and thus they have increased their charges while liquidity suffers on various markets. If I could bet as much money as I wanted at the advertised odds all the time, I'd have been long since sitting on my own tropical island drinking cocktails.
  23. If Nadal had been playing, I would have watched purely to see him and the shot clock. No interest otherwise so I've seen none of it. Absolutely, hard to see it any other way.
  24. Almost certainly would have announced that today if it was the case. I hope he is not just sticking with her out of stubbornness.
  25. Dani Vallverdu and Jez Green leave Murray's coaching team. A bit surprising; will be interested to see if he replaces them with anyone else.
×
×
  • Create New...