Wednesday, 11 January 2012

Note To Self

There is yet more complaining in the comments section, but this time it’s all good. While I try to post something most days, I don’t always have anything interesting to say, despite what you might all think. Yesterday was just one of those days, but apparently my ‘daily’ musings are missed, and I shall try to step up my game in future. Apologies for the empty day in your lives.

Al wrote:

No post today Cass?

how are we supposed to get through the day without your incredible wit and tenacity!?!?!
while 500-5000 speculated that the most common explanation of a lack of posts, losses, was to blame:
AL - Cassini might have cocked it all up and lost all his money! Lol.

Cassini - Where is your daily post!?
Give us this day our daily post.

With no Betfair availability on Monday night, I did make an attempt at trading the NCAA (College) Football Championship game on BETDAQ, but as others found with the tennis matches taking place at this time, liquidity was very poor. There was certainly no sign that a significant percentage of Betfair traders had moved their activity over, just every indication that they had taken the night off. A further reminder of just how dependent we are on Betfair, whether we like to admit it or not.

And for the record, 500-5000 was correct insofar as I did make a loss on that game, but I managed to not lose ALL my money! I’m not as stupid as I look, and let me tell you, that was quite a relief to my Mother. It was just that I couldn’t see LSU failing to at least keep the game close, and so I opposed them from the start, but they were awful, and with the liquidity so poor, there wasn’t the opportunity to trade out and take a loss at anything close to value, so I left the bet to run. I was hoping to wake up to a miracle, but it seems that Tim Tebow gets all the miracles these days, and in the end Alabama won 21-0. Note to self, must pray harder.

Note to BETDAQ, must try harder. Their interface is just poor. Aside from the large gaps due to poor liquidity, the prices continually vanish from markets, it seems slow, and I noticed that the reciprocal prices weren’t showing up on this market last night either, which was surprising because I remember BETDAQ leading the way with this. While I used to immediately know whether it was better to back at say 1.7, or lay at 2.3, Betfair has made me lazy and I had to refer to my tattered printout which hasn’t seen the light of day in years, and has been serving as a bookmark since being retired.

There was another comment posted, a rather rude one if I may say so, but since the author removed it, I shall rise above mentioning either the comment or the author.

I’m not sure why, but the daily hit rate for this blog has exceeded 600 for four consecutive days, the first time this has happened. The recent 'Successgate' controversy, also known as a storm in a teacup, might be partly the reason - there is no such thing as bad publicity - and I suspect the hit count on other 'success full’ blogs has also been elevated as passers-by look in to see what the fuss is about. Yesterday’s lack of a post meant the number of hits dropped to 597. Note to self, must post every day.

Last night, or rather this morning, saw a pair of dramatic comebacks in the NBA - the Chicago Bulls gave up a 24 point second quarter lead at the Minnesota Timberwolves followed by Miami Heat giving up a third quarter 17 point lead (trading at 1.01) at the Golden State Warriors, a team I mentioned here as being one of my favourites due to their quick scoring ability. My son bought me a lucky Warriors shirt after our trip there last April, and it seems to be working as the Warriors went on to win by three in overtime. Thanks son, who also had a good day yesterday after putting his money where mine feared to tread, backing Crystal Palace to beat Cardiff City at a tasty 3.65 or thereabouts before taking his seat at Selhurst Park for the League Cup Semi-Final.
Laying at short prices while there is still plenty of time remaining is the way to go. Backing at short prices with the entire game to go is a recipe for disaster.

A small tweak, and Parkinson's Law -
Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion
can be adapted to apply to some sports. It is human nature to ease up after taking a comfortable lead, and in a game like basketball, once a team takes its foot off the pedal, either by the coach resting players, or the players themselves subconsciously easing up, (a shot when you're up by 24 is clearly just not as important as one in a close game) it can be hard to turn it back on again when you suddenly find yourself in a dog-fight. Cassini's Law -
Lay low in play, for a high pay day.
And finally, there was this question a couple of days ago James, who asked:
Can I get your thoughts on this, after seeing Chelsea had Portsmouth today and realizing they would likely progress I back Chelsea to win the cup at 7.6, they won their match and their odds on winning the cup dropped to 5.5. I can trade out now for a nice green.

Can this type of tournament betting/trading be considered successful long term?
It’s not a strategy I employ too much myself, primarily because I don’t like the ‘gamble’ aspect of the bet. (I say 'too much' because in some tournaments, it is possible to project a team's likely path to the final, which is not something you can do in a competition drawn with no seeding round by round). When you back Chelsea to win the FA Cup, you are betting on them qualifying through six ties, which at the start of the season could potentially be as tough as matches at Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool, Arsenal, a neutral semi-final against Manchester City before facing Manchester United in the final. Or you could be betting on Chelsea getting past Portsmouth, MK Dons, Stevenage, Macclesfield, Crawley Town and Wrexham in the final – a far less daunting feat.

The point is that the 7.6 is an accumulator on Chelsea winning six games, of which you knew just the first. Yes you may well consider that Chelsea would get past Portsmouth in the Third Round, after all, most clubs would, but what the price does next depends on the draw, as much, if not more than as a result of beating Portsmouth. A home tie with MK Dons (or QPR) and the price comes in (and all the more so if other big clubs are drawn together, as did in fact happen - god may love the Denver Broncos, but Sir Alex Ferguson has maybe done something to upset him), but if they had been drawn away to Manchester United, I suspect the price might have slid just a little. So my approach is always to bet on the known rather than the unknown and roll the stakes up round by round if it still makes sense to do so, i.e. if the price available is value.


Baz said...

Sound advice as always Cass. When I first read James' question I thought the answer was an obvious yes.

If Betdaq are to make inroads into Betfairs market share they need to make substantial investment to improve the site, do the owners have the desire or bottle ??

I'm wondering, with all your night time trading do you ever sleep or are you above ordinary needs ?

Does your hit count include people like myself who use Google Reader to read your blog every day and only visit the web page now and again to read comments ? if not your readership may more than you think, millions perhaps !

fairfranco said...

Do you know if blog reads through blog readers show on your stats or are you just looking at website hit stats?

I would only come on the website to write or view comments but read all blogs through google reader.

Keep up the good blogging.

The form expert said...

Hi, would mind if we did a link for a blog exchange.
The form expert

The form expert said...

my address: