I bottled it a bit trading after laying 1.03, when I laid 1.03 I was actually hoping to have the chance to green at 1.1 or so, not have Eng winning! Although when it started to go I should have held longer.
It begs the age old question, is it really 'worth it' backing 1.01 or laying 1000 (Eng got matched at 1000 too). Just leaving aside the actual thinking of odds for a moment, even if you make it a 1/1,000 chance - is it still 'worth it' backing 1/100? I mean, if you have the €1,000 why do you need the tenner?
Obviously this is easy said after the event, but any number of 1.01s have been turned over at the French Open this week - Sport Is Made For Betting has most of the screen shots and 1/100 was turned over in GAA yesterday.
The only argument for it is the "well would you back 1/100 day becomes night?" But again just leaving that aside, if you have the €5k do you need the €50? Personally I wouldnt go around laying every 1.01 but backing it is insane IMO.
When I was down in the IFSC trading room, a figure of four 1.01s out of every 100 on horse racing were turned over, that was by someone who has worked in Betfair - the main problem was getting matched - as every time a market was set up (or opened) by Betfair bets would be fired in by bots in seconds to be first in the queue, so those stats never applied to the average person sitting there with a laptop.
The worst thing about lumping on short odds (and not being a millionaire) is it only takes one bad day at the office, and you never know when its coming..
Nice summary of the events. I actually laid the draw quite hevaily at various points in the game but only had small green on it by the end and had given up on their being any meaningful last day play to be honest. Turned over after the play-off final and it was 52-8, nearly feel off my chair. Wish I hadn't got rid of my massive green now, although I probably wouldn't have even taken the 999/1 on England at 3pm today. Suprised they declared when they did thought they'd have kept Sri Lanka in the field and tired out their bowlers ahead of the second test.
ReplyDeleteI think without the rain Eng would have definitely won, cant see SL bowling Eng out cheaply in any Test unless the wicket is very poor.
ReplyDeleteI would have kept them in the field too, shows what I know!
*won anyway.
ReplyDeleteFew people on Twitter saying they thought the SL innings was a bit dodgy. Bit harsh, Eng bowling was awesome IMO.
I'm posting a link to this post in my blog, hope you don't mind, you sum it up better than I could.
ReplyDeleteI should have stayed focused on the cricket to be honest, missed out on a good opportunity to trade. Although the footy wasn't half bad as well. Could have been worse I suppose, I could have been a draw backer. I did have England 500+ runs though, therefore the declaration wasn't in my favour. Although the profit back on the England win made up for it.
I agree England look good at present, should really wrap this series up no problem. Sri Lanka's strength is in their batting and today they didn't shine themselves in glory. Their bowling attack doesn't seem to have much to threaten England's batsmen like you say. Although maybe it's best to expect the unexpected, Sri Lanka to knock over England for less than a 100 in the first innings at Lord's then?
No problem mate.
ReplyDeleteIf Eng are all out for 100 against this attack I'll eat my hat!
Thats unlucky on the 500+, Morgs let you down a bit there blocking those 5 balls when he had no reason to. Probably worried about his place and didnt want to get out but he should have been swinging you'd think at that stage - if they were thinking of declaring once Bell got a 100.