I mentioned yesterday that Peter Nordsted was in very heavily on the Unders in the Everton v Newcastle United game, recommending account bets on the Under 1.5, Under 2.5, Under 3.5 and also on the Draw, which of course goes hand-in-hand with Unders.
The answer to this puzzle is certainly not in the price movement. Everton tightened quite considerably during the day, coming in from the 1.68 or so I recommended the bet at, to around 1.6 just before kick-off, so to jump horses from the drifting draw to shortening Everton wouldn’t make any sense.
Anyway, I’d moved on with my life, at least until Anonymous mentioned in a comment that:
If you look at Pete’s Matchbook advice in the Everton game that he says “over 2.5 goals offers value at 1.91” so bizarre that he should advise clients to back unders. Perhaps it’s an error and it was backing Overs in all…. which would make a huge difference to the table. That’s the only explanation as otherwise all credibility would be lost.The plot thickens, as my Dad likes to say, and unfortunately, error is not the explanation. Each individual price on the under 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 bets was listed complete with bookmaker and besides, if Overs was the intended bet, then the draw is not going to be value.
So unlike the Draw / Everton split, where both could be value as I said, here we have specific directly opposite suggestions of value - Over 2.5 goals at 1.91 in one place (Matchbook) and Under 2.5 goals at 2.05 in another (Account Bets). With a slight over-round on those prices, they cannot both be value. It's unfortunate, but mathematics and probability don’t work that way.
It’s not the first time that conflicting advice has come from Peter. Some of you on Twitter may have seen and recall a three-way conversation between Peter (@petenordsted), Richard Allen (@Reeshah_uk) and myself (@calciocassini) back in June, where Richard Tweeted about an MLS prediction of Pete’s: