Omega Betting had a brief comment on the CONCACAF Gold Cup final last night between the USA and Mexico (as usual):
The Draw odds [3.25] reflect that this is a final and are rather skinny, however their really isn’t much between these teams when home advantage is factored in and USA are a value pick at 3.3, with a minimum price of 3.25.I'm guessing Omega hasn't spent much time in Southern California if he thinks the US have home advantage in a match there versus Mexico! My play on this was a lay of Mexico pre-game at 2.32. The price then dropped like a stone, going odds-on within about five minutes of play which seemed rather bizarre to me. I don't often trade the Match Odds market, so maybe this isn't unusual, but it seemed to me that while Mexico certainly opened strongly, to go odds-on from 2.32 based on the first five minutes or so of a game was a bit of an overreaction. I doubled down at 2.08, and the USA promptly scored, at which point I greened up and called it a night.
Sports Trading Life had an interesting write up on the subject of Slicer's Secret Bet. I must confess to having downloaded (for free, thanks to the link in STL's post) the method that a certain user was selling to a limited (200) number of users for just £99. As I suspected, it isn't risk-free at all. You lay the half-time 0-0 score, and back the full-time 0-0, and then lay an 'unlikely' correct score at half-time if there has been no goal. The problem of course, is that 'unlikely' scores do come along, and at correspondingly high prices, but I must admit the idea does have some merit on first sight, even if it's not the promised Holy Grail. I might look into how some of these prices move, but I won't be giving up my day job any time soon. I did actually put in a lay of the HT 0-0 in the USA v Mexico game at 2.52, but it won rather quickly, so the half-time adjustment will have to be reviewed another time. The 0-0 was around 9.4 pre-game.
5 comments:
I must admit to not having visited the states at all, however I believe the comment holds true despite Mexico's occasional use of the stadium. I suppose it depends on your opinion of what causes home advantage, which is a very interesting topic in itself.
From 18th July 2011 Betfair will be making some changes to the Premium Charge. The current Premium Charge mechanism will remain in place but higher rates may now apply to a small number of customers (less than 0.1% of annual active customers).
Full details of the changes can now be found on the Betfair Charges page under the About Us section of the website. However, the changes can be summarised as follows:
• Customers will only be subject to Premium Charges at higher rates if they satisfy all of the following conditions:
o Lifetime net profits* exceed £250,000
o Lifetime commission generated less than 40% of lifetime gross profits
o Bet in more than 1,000 markets
• Customers that satisfy all of the above conditions will be asked to pay Premium Charges at rates between 40% and 60% on all future exchange activity.
All customers that will be affected by these changes have already been contacted.
For more information, please visit our FAQ section here promotions.betfair.com/pcharge/
We hope the information provided will outline why we are making these changes and how they will be implemented in practice.
If you have any further questions, please send them to premiumcharge@betfair.com.
*by net profits we mean the amounts won less the amounts lost, on all exchange markets, less all commission paid and Premium Charges debited.
OOOOMMMMMMGGGG
Pete, I agree with Cassini. Your comment doesn't hold true. It isn't about "occasional use". It's about the fact that most of the crowd were supporting Mexico. This was easy to predict. It was the first game between the US and Mexico to be held in Southern California in 11 years. In the 2000 census, 32.4% of California was reported as of Hispanic or Latino origin (Pasadena, where the game was held, was a shade higher, at 33.4%). Immigration from Mexico has risen in the past 10 years -- and bear in mind that undocumented workers may not be fully accounted for in census figures.
I agree that different things make up "home advantage", but surely crowd support is a part. When a US team walks out to a 93,000 crowd where the majority is supporting the opposition -- some reports called it "a sea of green" -- in a stadium in a city that has a large Hispanic and Mexican population, you have to feel that any advantage they might have had due to the fact Pasadena is on one side of the border is diminished. Perhaps not diminished as much as if the game had been played in Mexico City, but diminished some.
That's just my point though, games played behind closed doors show the same home advantage as games with a crowd, likewise matches between same stadium teams where the "home" team have a higher ticket allocation show no home advantage. I don't know what does cause it, but it's not the crowd that causes home advantage
Paper on home-ground advantage in sport
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/06/home-ground-advantage-in-super-rugby.html
Post a Comment