Betfair Evolution

June 2000:

PITY the poor, traditional bookmaker. His familiar world is rapidly falling apart. Generations of monopoly over enslaved punters have already met challenges from the Internet and tax-free offshore rivals. Now even the last bastion of bookmaking - the ability to set the odds - is being taken away. As from today, those who have longed to back the Derby favourite, King's Best, at 5-1 rather than 3-1, or to take the money of anyone foolish enough to think that England can win Euro 2000, can theoretically do so.

The opportunity comes courtesy of a revolutionary form of betting that banishes those irritating middlemen with their sheepskins, sleek limos and bulging satchels. The idea has been kept carefully under wraps for months but tonight, in Covent Garden, just in time for one of the headiest sports betting weekends of the year, it will be launched to a gathering of gamblers and celebrities. A company called Betfair, describing itself as a "sports betting exchange", essentially gives the punter a chance to decide his own odds.

Put simply, the mechanism is a website that provides a dynamic screen on which it will be possible to call up a variety of sports events, nominate a bet and await it being taken by some other anonymous gambler in cyberspace. Participation will be restricted to account holders, who will be required to deposit a sum of money that will either grow or shrink depending on their success rate. 

It is all the brainchild of Andrew Black, a sports-mad computer analyst, whose background includes being thrown out of university for failing exams and spending successive years as a professional gambler and a full-time bridge player. "I've worked in the city and I have always gambled on sport," Black explained. "It was an extension of both activities to come up with a trading system for sports betting."

Conventional bookmakers will view this as yet another threat to their once sacred territory and will bridle at their role in the launch today, when a mock funeral cortège for bookmakers is staged through the City's square mile. Leaflets will be distributed simultaneously outside Underground stations proclaiming "The bookie is dead" and bidding a sombre farewell to the turf accountant "who emptied punters' pockets, took shirts off their backs, never made a decent price and died with the birth of open-market betting".

Such audacity, from a marketing team that includes Mark Davies, the son of BBC sports commentator, Barry, will ensure irksome questions about the legality of a scheme that ignores betting conventions. It seems that betfair has already covered this problem, however, as Linklaters, the firm of solicitors, is a shareholder in the company. "They assure us that we don't need to pay betting tax because, effectively, we are brokers rather than bookmakers," Black said.

The new company will make its profits through commission on winning bets. It begins trading today on Epsom's big races and Euro 2000, but its parameters could spread in unusual directions. "As we don't need specialist odds-layers, we can offer any sporting event at all," Black said. "We will put up sumo wrestling if people want it, so long as we can authenticate the results."

No thanks

Betfair Sportsbook

Betfair Exchange

2013, and the wheel has turned almost full circle. As most of you will know, Betfair have introduced a traditional Sportsbook alongside it's Exchange site, and it would appear to offer nothing to anyone with half a brain. Prices are poor in comparison to, not only the Exchange, but also other books - three screenshots for the upcoming Manchester United v Reading game illustrate.

A post from frog2 sums up the current state of affairs:

I think its fair to say that the current fixed odds website is very very poor. It is characterised by terrible prices and terrible limits. It has joined the current fad of being a soft bookie - i.e. refusing bets to anyone who has a clue. In short it is a pathetic offering and if it was launched without the Betfair name it would not last five minutes.

Betfair is struggling to find its identity. In the early years it was all about 'winners welcome', 'sharp minds Betfair'. When they took over Flutter they stressed that the merged markets would mean more liquidity and thus higher limits for customers. They developed the technology to match more bets that than all the European exchanges put together.

Then what did they do? They started looking for soft targets. They branched out into games and poker. At the time it was all still person to person. I remember one of the founders telling me they were not being greedy and they were sticking to their p2p principles. Then came the casino. The p2p games were replaced by ones run by Betfair themselves. The cross-matcher came in - to this day I still don't know if it gets to beat the clock in-running to match bets.

This was still not enough. They have since walked further from the starting point. They introduced the Premium Charge. Uproar at 20%. But really this would only affect traders, cheats and extremely good position gamblers. Then it went up to 40% and 60%. Now 40% gets all good big players. Arbers - gone. Decent position gamblers who have a long term return of over 3% on stakes - gone or slowly moving. The consequences of the Premium Charge are huge.

Then there are the data charges and bet placement charges. Great in theory. But a 1000 bets an hour max? Try pricing up and adjusting books for 30 races or football matches a day (with all their secondary markets) with that. You cannot. So early markets are no more.

So what started as the perfect limit order book market has evolved into a monster. It has not been helped by the lack of regulation by Betfair itself. Instead of the Premium Charge why did they not look to level the playing field? Encourage people to leave offers up rather than take them with commission rebates. Get rid of obviously unfair markets like in-play horses until real time streams are available. Not allow connections to bet on here. The list is endless.

Betfair could have hired someone who has experience of running a real exchange to run the company. Prices and policies and new markets would have been completely different. Maybe LMAX would not have failed if this was the case. But we now have an out and out industry man at the helm hired out of another soft bookie. So what can we expect going forward?

I would have liked to have seen a lot more thought going into the sportsbook. There are some bookmakers that do actually take bets and offer sharp lines using a proper dealer market. If Betfair had gone down that route I could see the point of it. If they could have offered decent prices to a fixed amount to everyone and adjust the lines if they believe a sharp has just placed a bet they could have had a winning product. The UK is crying out for this. Surely a crack trading team is capable of building the software to do this.

A rubbish sportsbook is a bad fit for the exchange. They need a fair limit, decent price one. Lower margin yes but much much higher volume.

One In A Thousand - Nap

The mention yesterday of Stanley Matthews playing one league game at the age of 50 reminded me of something I read about round numbers and the importance attached to them. It seems highly likely that Matthews decided well in advance to hang up his boots having reached 50. It looks so much more impressive than retiring age 49 and 360 days, in contrast to most of us who would probably much rather retire as soon as possible rather than work past age 50, 60 or 70 if we didn't have to.

And New Year's Eve was far more celebrated in 1999 than it was in 2000, never mind that 2001 was the first day of the third millennium, and not 1.1.00. Incidentally, the Embankment was a lot quieter on 31.12.00 than it was a year earlier.   

There is an amazing statistic from the statistic-heavy sport of baseball concerning hitting percentage. Not all readers will be familiar with baseball, but a hitting average of .300 (how the Americans record 30%) is something of a milestone separating a star player from a more ordinary one. Hit .299 and you are a relative failure, but hit .300 and you are a star. The difference in perception is huge, considering that the difference amounts to one extra hit per 1,000 at bats, and with salaries at the level they are these days, an average of .300 gives a player an estimated 2% more in salary than a .299 hitter. And with the average salary of a .300 hitter in the $6.5 to $7 million range, that's a fair amount.

So what is this amazing statistic I hear you ask?

A study of the final day of the seasons 1975 to 2009 looked at players entering that game on .299 and .300. When it comes to calculating averages, a 'walk' (look it up if you need to) doesn't count, and the study found that players on .300 walked far more often than players on .299 and .298 who swung away trying to get that hit to put them at .300. .300 hitters walked 14.5% of the time, .298 hitters walked 5.8% of the time, and hitters on .299?

Players hitting .299 have NEVER walked in their final plate appearance of the season over a quarter of a century. NEVER, meaning 'not ever'.

Having told you this statistic, I will be very disappointed to hear that this run ended in 2010, 2011 or 2012 after the study, but even if it has, it clearly shows how that .001 influences decisions far more than it should.

The study also noted that players on .300 are far more likely to take the last game off and preserve that number than a .299 hitter, who stays in the game to the final at-bat.

The outcome of this is that on the penultimate day of the season, .300 and .299 hitters is almost identical (0.8% and 0.79% of hitters respectively) but at season's end one day later, the numbers are 1.4% and 0.4% respectively.  

You'll see a similar thing in other sports too. In basketball, players getting close to a personal best or a double-double or a triple-double will usually stay in games long after they would normally have been pulled, and not only that, but their team-mates will play differently to try to ensure the target in question is reached.

On the subject of final day drama, one of the biggest controversies in baseball occurred during the 1910 batting race between the disliked Ty Cobb (a 'virulent' racist detested by opponents and team-mates alike) and the popular Nap (Napoleon) Lajoie. Wikipedia tells the story far better than I could, although to be honest, I don't remember the details too clearly after all this time.  

The Lajoie-Cobb rivalry reached a peak in 1910, when Hugh Chalmers of the Chalmers Auto Company (a direct predecessor to modern-day Chrysler) promised a Chalmers 30 Roadster to the season's batting champion. The public became fascinated with the daily statistics of Lajoie and Cobb in what became known as the Chalmers Race. Sports bettors, who by this time followed the sport attentively, also followed the daily reports with interest. Cobb took the final two games, a doubleheader, off against the Chicago White Sox, confident that his average was safe and would allow him to win the AL batting title—unless Lajoie had a near-perfect final day. Going into the final game of the season, Cobb's average led Lajoie's, .383 to .376.

Lajoie and the Naps faced a doubleheader against the St. Louis Browns' pitching staff in Sportsman's Park, Cleveland's final two games of the season. After a sun-hindered fly ball went for a stand-up triple and another batted ball landed for a cleanly hit single, Lajoie had five subsequent hits – bunt singles dropped in front of rookie third baseman Red Corriden (whose normal position was shortstop), who was playing closer to shallow left field on orders, it has been suggested, of manager Jack O'Connor. In his second at bat of the second game, Lajoie dropped another bunt but the runner on first base advanced. According to the rules of that time, the hit was scored a sacrifice and thus, Lajoie did not record an official at bat. He finished the doubleheader a perfect 8-for-8 and his batting average increased to .384, .001 greater than Cobb's mark.

Although the AL office had not officially announced the results, Lajoie began to receive congratulations from fans and players, including eight of Cobb's Detroit Tigers teammates. Most players in the league preferred Lajoie's personality to that of Cobb's. Coach Harry Howell is reported to have said to the game's official scorer, E.V. Parish, "to do well by Lajoie." 

Howell was reported to have offered a bribe to Parish, which described in Al Stump's biography of Cobb, was a $40 ($963 in current dollar terms) suit. Parish refused the offer and the resulting uproar ended in O'Connor and Howell being banned from the major leagues by AL President Ban Johnson.

Johnson had the matter investigated, and after having Cobb's September 24 doubleheader statistics re-checked, discovered only the first game of Cobb's statistics had been scored, but not the second game, in which he went 2-for-3. This put Cobb's suggested actual batting average at .385, again ahead of Lajoie's. In the end, Johnson ruled that Lajoie's sacrifice bunt should have been recorded as a hit (which would have allowed him to go 9-for-9) but that Cobb's batting average was greater, recording 196 hits in 509 at bats to Lajoie's 227 hits in 591 at bats. 

Johnson asked Chalmers if his company would award an automobile to each player, to which he agreed. Initially Lajoie refused the car but eventually relented and accepted it. Cobb said, "I am glad that I won an automobile and am especially pleased that Lajoie also gets one. I have no one to criticize. I know the games were on the square and I am greatly pleased to know that the affair has ended so nicely." 

Lajoie said, "I am quite satisfied that I was treated fairly in every way by President Johnson, but I think the scorer at St. Louis made an error in not crediting me with nine hits. However, I am glad that the controversy is over. I have the greatest respect for Cobb as a batter and am glad of his success."

The Sporting News published an article written by Paul MacFarlane in its April 18, 1981, issue where historian Pete Palmer had discovered that while Cobb's September 24 doubleheader was not correctly tabulated (perhaps purposefully) according to the correct date, the second game's statistics were in fact included in the next day's ledger, thus incorrectly recording a second 2-for-3 performance from Cobb which meant Lajoe's average was greater. Author James Vail wrote in 2001:

"To date, it seems that no one knows for certain who won that 1910 batting title. Total Baseball, which is now the official major-league record, lists both men at .384 in its seasonal section, but its player register has Lajoie at the same number and Cobb at .383—so even the various editors of that source do not, or cannot, agree." Jon Wertheim wrote in Sports Illustrated 100 years after the event, "The statistics for the Detroit players had been crossed out and nullified. Every Detroit player, that is, except one: Ty Cobb. It takes something less than a detective to arrive at the conclusion that at some point Johnson (or someone in the league office, anyway) realized the error and decided to conceal it."

Intrade Out

The FT has an article on Intrade's demise and the 'financial irregularities' that spells trouble for account holders, and Yahoo!Finance has this to say:

Dublin wagering website Intrade.com announced on Sunday that it was completely shutting down. The move comes months after the company was sued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for operating an improper, off-site options exchange.

Intrade shot to popularity during the 2008 presidential election when it correctly predicted a win for President Obama. The site also allowed users to place wagers on commodity prices, Oscar races and whether or not the economy would slip into an official recession. The "big idea" was that the predictive power of a market's collective intelligence was greater than that of any individual. The reality was that Intrade was a routine gambling market operating without U.S. oversight.

None of which matters much to the masses in the U.S., who are hardly wanting for ways to place wagers. What brings the story home is the drive to legalize online wagering sponsored by more traditional casinos.

New Jersey has the most at stake as the U.S. tries to redefine what constitutes "legal wagering." On February 26, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law a bill allowing online wagering in his revenue-starved state. As a give-back for the increased business, casinos agreed to a 10% to 15% tax hike on online revenues.

Christie's budget projects contributions to the state's Casino Revenue Fund will be anywhere from $235 million this year to $436 million next year, which is largely based on allowing online gamers to legally play any game found in a casino.

It remains to be seen what made U.S. regulators target Intrade, but it's impossible to rule out fraud given the accusations of fraud surrounding other gambling sites like AbsolutePoker.com, Full-tilt Poker, Online Poker Stars and Absolute Poker just in the last six years.

The most likely scenario is that the U.S. government will take pains to run the criminals out of business to maximize its own take. Such selective prosecution is exactly what was done with the lottery — which was once a black market numbers racket.

Legitimizing online gambling in the states would be a boon for companies like Caesar's (CZR) and Zynga (ZNGA), which are both counting on getting a piece of the online gambling action. Cracking down on the black market offshore sites gets rid of competition on the taxpayers' dime.

Since the end of January CZR and ZNGA are up 76% and 36%, respectively. Odds are the Intrade shutdown is an incremental positive for both, but it's a binary wager. Neither company has much going for it if they can't facilitate gaming.

And on the perhaps more interesting topic of prediction markets, the FT has this to say.

Stanley Matthuselah

Overall up, but a mixed weekend for the XX Draws. The Classic selections were 0 from 4, but the Extended selections were 4 of 13 (five losers from five on Sunday was disappointing) and two Bundesliga selections finished 0-0 and 0-1. The one Bundelayga selection also won, a lay of Freiburg (v Wolfsburg). I have also started throwing in a bonus value selection in the XX Draws email, and with the selection of Newcastle United to beat Stoke City and the Overs, you can imagine the excitement in Cassini Castle when the Magpies hit that late winner. Late goals aren't always bad news.

Looking at the other entries, and Neil made a small profit (he would have made more had he followed his heart and Aston Villa) to take the lead in the non-XX division ahead of Premier Edge who also had a small profit, and Drawmaster who had no winners from three. Premier Betting also showed a loss, as did backing the Lay The Draw selection.

Of the entries in the red, Football Elite found three winners from seven picks for a profit for the third week in a row, and Jon (Talkie) Talkbet also finished the weekend ahead. Nothing this weekend from Al, the Free O/U picks went 1-1 for a small loss, and Football Formbook dropped to the foot of the table dropping 4.71 points.

As many of you will know, Betfair refunded commission on winning UK Saturday football bets as a result of their outage, although the logic of helping winners escapes me. Surely some special arrangement for those who LOST as a result of the outage might have made more sense. And did the outage only apply in the UK? Why only UK football? If they really want to help winners, perhaps a moratorium on the PC for a few months might have been a better idea?

One of the best blogs I read is Mark Taylor's The Power Of Goals. As used as I am to finding interesting facts there, I must admit that I was very surprised to read about the extent of Sir Stanley Matthews' longevity in his latest piece:

Quite incredible. 500 years old! Some of us are unlikely to even reach our fiftieth decade, never mind be playing top class football. I am beginning to think I may have hung my boots up about 460 years too early.

Even playing past 400 is rare, as Mark writes:

but we can really begin to appreciate just how unusual it is for a player to play into his fortieth decade if we produced a team average weighted by playing time.

Unusual indeed. Matthews famously played for Stoke City and Blackpool, but not many know that he also played (wartime) matches for Airdrieonians, Morton, Rangers and Arsenal. You can win a beer with that piece of trivia. 

Matthews did play a game at the age of 70 - for an England Veterans XI against a Brazil Veterans XI in Brazil. He injured his cartilage during the game, and rather amusingly wrote in his autobiography that it resulted in "a promising career cut tragically short".

2:56 Saturday Afternoon

Your Premium Charges At Work

Looks Promising

Oh Dear

Off The Scale

An amazing night in the NBA with 28 of the 30 teams in action. Only Denver and Oklahoma City were idle, and both play tonight - at home to the Los Angeles Clippers and away to the New York Knicks respectively.

But that wasn't the amazing part. No less than seven of the 14 games saw a team lead by double figures and went on to lose. I can't think of one occasion when this has happened in football... 

These comebacks, which happen more often than you might think, are what make the NBA such a perfect sport for trading with the reward to risk ratio very favourable when laying at short odds. 

The worst losers were the New Orleans Hornets who led by 25 at home to the inconsistent Los Angeles Lakers, before losing by six. That must have stung. The full list of shame (or opportunity, depending on your point of view) is:

Two other teams (Sixers and Wizards) led by 8, and the Magic led the Heat late in the fourth quarter by five (and going odds-on after Miami had traded at 1.01) before the Heat came back to win by one. Golden State (up 10 at one point) also trailed in the final minute after trading at 1.08 but came back to beat the Sacramento Kings by four. A key win in the race for the play-offs, with both Houston and Utah losing, and plenty of home games to come.

For what it's worth, the Denver Nuggets have a big advantage playing at home tonight against the Los Angeles Clippers. Denver are good enough at home as it is (26-3 with the three losses all against East teams, and unbeaten since January 18th), but factor in that the Clippers played last night, and have to fly west. They also beat the Clippers 92-78 at home on January 1st. I'm just saying.   

I always thought that on a scale of 1 to 10, the low was 1, but per the below report on ESPN, apparently the rules of mathematics have changed since I was at school: 

While the New York Jets may be determined to trade Darrelle Revis, it would be a mistake to count the San Francisco 49ers as a serious suitor, according to a team source. The 49ers' interest in Revis is ".001 on a scale of 1-10," the source said via text message. That remains consistent with the same team source who previously stated the 49ers were not inclined to pursue a Revis trade.

Perhaps the .001 was after the deduction of commission?

Civil Debate

John asked:

Do you think that there is value in the correct score market betting the 0-0 at half-time (on those games that are scoreless)?

Of 115 XX Draw selections that have been 0-0 at half-time (out of 367 selections) 34 have remained goalless, 'true' odds of 3.38.

I have spent very little time looking at the Correct Score market, so I have no idea if this price is available at half-time too often or not, but perhaps someone more familiar with this market can provide some positive input.

47 of the 115 went on to finish as draws (implied odds of 2.45) and 94 finished Under 2.5 (1.22).

Nasty Effect

I am once again indebted to Scott for pointing me in the direction of a New York Times story on the topic of the 'nasty effect - the impact that negatively toned comments have on blog posts. The article concludes with:

It’s possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning mean-spirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead.

Until then, beware the nasty effect.

Season Draws On

Another weekend behind us, and the football seasons seem to go by ever faster the older I get. It was a good weekend for the XX Draws, even with commission factored in. There were just two Classic selections which combined for just one goal between them, three Extended selections including El Clásico which lost to a late (82') goal, and two games which again totalled just one goal, and three Bundesliga selections, two of which finished 1-1.

The selection categories in profit are:

The top four in the table remain unchanged, while the main contenders shuffle around a little. Drawmaster found one winner from three while Neil had a small loss, while Premier Edge and Premier Betting both made profits. The Bundeslayga system had three selections, and two were winners as Hamburg and Werder Bremen both failed to win.

The categories in negative territory are:

Football Elite had an excellent start with a winner at 5.7 in Stade de Reims v Paris St Germain, but ended the weekend up just 1 point. Little Al had five misses on the draws, Football Formbook had a second consecutive profitable weekend, Jon Talkie had a loss and that was about it. As always:

What A Joke

No doubt many potential visitors yesterday were put off, quite reasonably, by the malware warning resulting from my link to Daily25's site.

I have removed the link, and actually remember seeing this warning some time ago for this site. Thanks to Scott for bringing this to my attention. Hopefully we are good to go now.

A few positive comments or emails to report, names concealed on the emails to protect the shy contributors:

Keep up the good work on the blog Cass, don't be disheartened by those trying to bring negativity into what has been a great read for me the last couple of years.

You have been very open, honest and transparent in all as far as I can see, particularly your draw selections and the friendly tipster table. I don't claim to have an edge at all in my selections - just a bit of fun to see how it ends up compared to the XXDraws at end of season.

Some people may see you having a big ego and putting people down - but these posts have been some of the most valuable - especially from a newbie perspective. As you are someone who is a pro it can come across as having a big ego - but i think it is more that you are more knowledgeable and it is to be commended that you have been so helpful to point out fallacies and untruths.

Those criticising are contributing nothing to the community - you are putting yourself out there. Some are probably jealous and want to see you fail like they probably do with their bets.

Your blog has helped guide me personally on the right path to seeking value bets and made my betting more enjoyable.

Cheers pal & all the best.

It occurred to me after my last post that the F for 'Friendly' should make it clear that the table isn't meant for anything too serious, but I guess not.

And there was this one:

Hi Cassini.

Hope you well. Love the blog.

A bit sad that you feel to keep on explaining that a lot of your comments are tongue in cheek. But hey its not your fault some people have had a sense of humour bypass so keep 'em coming.

Love the blog (not only for the humour) but for views on betting that are very similar to mine 'value value value'.

I was hopeless at it and never really understood how to gamble successfully. One day I picked up Joe Buchdahl's book Fixed Odds Sports Betting (have you read it?) and it changed everything.

Anyway, I've been doing some over/under 2.5 stuff lately and not really finding an edge so my ideas not really bearing fruit (I suspect as it has now become so popular the bookies are too well prepared in this market but I might be wrong) I came across an old post of yours http://green-all-over.blogspot.com/2011/12/simples.htmland was wandering where you went with this? Was it something you persevered with or did it lead down cul-de-sacs? (yes I am being a lazy bastard and taking the time to find out for myself).

Interested to hear how you found the ideas if you did persevere?

Keep up the good work on the blog you fine man and ignore the gobshites.

All very much appreciated, although I am not actually a pro. My trading and XX Draws are all done in my own time, although I can see why they could be mistaken for the work of a professional...

I can understand why some people might miss my subtle sense of humour and take me too seriously - their excuse being that they are not English, but it seems that some English people miss the joke too. Probably northerners [Joking] I'll try to make my jokes more obvious so that everyone can laugh together.

And no, I have not read Joe Buchdahl's book. Yet. But I've just ordered it, a little light reading over the Easter break perhaps.

I'd forgotten the Simples post, but a quick peek revealed that most of it was a tongue-in-cheek look at a Vincent's strategy. Unfortunately, by treating all games, or all opponents as the same, it was fundamentally flawed. Scoring one goal to home to Queens Park Rangers, Aston Villa and Reading is not the same as scoring one goal at home to Manchester United, Manchester City and Crystal Palace [Joking - the Palace bit. See, Palace are 'my' team, I mean I'm not the owner or anything, I just like them a lot, as a fan, but the joke, and it's a good one, so work with me here, the joke is that they are not yet in the same league (literally) as the two Manchester teams, so it's funny because Palace isn't the third team name you might be expecting to see listed there]. To get a meaningful goal expectation you have to drill a little deeper.

Of course not all emails are positive, and no guesses for who had this threat to make:

Cassini please refrain from your borderline libelous remarks about me.

"Borderline libellous!" Oh dear, someone is apparently unaware that under UK law "you can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are".

How can the reputation of an anonymous person possibly be damaged by anything I might have written?

I shall defend myself vigorously and suggest that any damage to the reputation in question was self-inflicted with the claim that 50% edges are everywhere. The only damage was likely to have been to people's sides, splitting as they read this ridiculous claim. [Joking - it's an English expression]

UK libel law also looks "to consider whether the words complained of were, even if strictly defamatory, more than a trivial attack which would not be taken seriously."

Seriously, someone needs to put on their big-boy pants and grow up. Jail time is looking unlikely.

I mention this, not to lower the tone, although it has, but to give an example of the kind of time-wasting nonsense I have to put up with, although it is all rather amusing.

Not quite so amusing was last night's Golden State Warriors performance at the Madison Square Garden - Stephen Curry played all 48 minutes, hit 11 three-pointers (out of 13 attempts) and scored 54 points (out of a team total of 105). But not quite enough to beat the New York Knicks who scored 109.

Curry is hot right now. He picked up three personal phals last night, and scored 38 on Tuesday in India-na. I'm here all week.

Fast-Break Opportunities

A friend of mine mentioned over dinner on Saturday night that the tone of this blog had recently turned rather negative. He reads the blog every couple of weeks in chunks, so any change in character is probably more obvious than to someone reading, or writing, on a daily (or close to) basis.

While I try to rise above negativity, it is all too easy to get sucked down at times, and in an effort to avoid this in future, my policy will be to ignore ALL negative, insulting, or repetitive comments. The nature of gambling means that there are a lot of bitter people trolling around wondering why it is always them or thinking that the rules of cricket should change because they have bet on a game, but while they are free to visit the blog (I can block IP addresses, but haven't needed to in several years) there's no need for me to sink to their level.

So, in this new spirit, here are some positive, and quite generous if I do say so myself, thoughts on my favourite trading sport, basketball and the NBA.

I was writing an article earlier this week on the subject of statistics, specifically how some are worse than useless while others are invaluable, and was looking at fast-break points in basketball. I've written before how I like to trade on teams that can score a lot of points, or can give up a lot of points in a hurry, and the best team for scoring fast-break points so far this season is the Denver Nuggets. They were also top last season, and in fact since 2004, either the Denver Nuggets or the Golden State Warriors have topped this statistic, which is quite remarkable. Denver have had the same coach since the 2004-05 season (George Karl) and coaches tend not to change their playing style. Between 2004 and 2006 Denver led, then for five season 2006-11 Golden State Warriors were on top, (Don Nelson took over at the start of the 2005-06 season) and now the 'honours' have returned back to Detroit. As I wrote on the eve of last season:

One thing to be aware of is that the Warriors have a new coach this season, Mark Jackson, and the style of play may change slightly. Certainly in the days of Don Nelson, they were one of the best teams to trade, with their propensity for both giving up and scoring points in bunches.

For once, I was right. (The modesty is unlikely to last as long as the positivity). Golden State worked on tightening up their defence, traded Monta Ellis, and dropped to tenth place in this category. What made the Warriors the perfect team for trading was that from 2005 to 2011, not only were they top for fast-break scoring, but they were also near top (or worst) at giving up most fast-break points. In 2006 they were 28th (of 30 teams), in 2007 26th, in 2008 27th, and for three seasons from 2009 to 2011 were dead last.

They improved hugely last season to 23rd, and this season are even better at 20th and well positioned for a play-off spot. For now, the fun on trading Warriors games has calmed a little, but this strategy still offers opportunities. Back to this season, and I mentioned Denver were the top fast-break scoring team. Right now, the Los Angeles Lakers are the team conceding most fast-break points, and the two met on Monday night. The line was set fairly high at 217.5, but at 2.12 the Overs was worth a bet in my opinion. The logic is that the line is set by people who are usually not too far off, but the general public simply see a line that looks too high without necessarily looking at relevant statistics and push the Unders price too low. Anyway, take it or leave it, but over the last few years, this is a useful statistic.

With the Bologna v Fiorentina completed last night after a two day delay due to snow, the weekend's results are all in. Significant movers were Talkbet (+5 places), while Premier Betting and Football Elite both went up 4 spots. For the XX Draws, the Classic selections had just one winner from eight selections (although the much discussed Norwich City v Everton game was very unlucky, and a couple of other games were drawn as late as the 80th minute). The Extended selections fared better, with four winning draws from eight selections and the Bundesliga had one draw from two selections.

Quincy ME?

I left a comment over at Daily25s blog [link removed due to malware warning] on the subject of the XX Draws, commission and the importance of getting top prices. It went on a little longer than I was planning, and became worthy, in my opinion, of a blog post (with one or two additions here):

Hi Steve - Danny seems to be under the impression [commission on XX selections not included in FTL table] that this is all something of a revelation, which is surprising as he claims to have read the prospectus - which is really just a fancy name for an FAQ. I state quite clearly in there that:

The prices quoted will be those that should be available on the Betting Exchanges. If the draw price is 3.45 to Back and 3.5 to Lay at the time I send out the selections, I will suggest 3.5. This means that I suggest placing a bet asking for 3.5 rather than taking the 3.45 that is available. The draw price seldom shortens significantly, and if your money is in place early enough, more often than not, you will be matched at your asking price. If other subscribers have acted on their e-mail ahead of you and driven the price down by a tick (.05), the draw is still value. At a strike rate of 32.4%, a price above 3.0 is still great value, but I would recommend asking for a price more often than you take one, because those .05s add up over a season and make a big difference.  For record keeping, I will use the price at which I am able to get matched, usually on Betfair. [Note: I need to update that part because I don't actually suggest a price, but leave it to the individual to get the best price for himself].

No secrets there. Commission, as are other costs, is an individual issue, I am on 50%, others are on 60%, some may be at zero or close to it, and (again from the prospectus) "At least one subscriber uses the XX Draws to mitigate the Betfair Premium Charge" as well as myself. And those 0.5s really do make a big difference. I used to add a disclaimer to the FTL table about commission and may well include it again some new readers don't take the time to read all the posts it seems.

The FTL table also doesn't account for the cost of the professional services, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned that. The answer is the same though - the cost is not the same for all subscribers.

The draw prices I record are all those at which I am matched - I actually took a screenshot of the 3.6 Norwich City v Everton game mentioned above on Saturday (desperately unlucky by the way) but people tend to ignore evidence when it doesn't suit them. Think of anyone who is religious!

If I am getting 3.6 and recording that price, then clearly there will be a big difference over a season if someone else is taking 3.4.

What is indisputable is that so far this season, I have sent out a total of  358 selections, of which 111 were winners (31%) - implied odds 3.23 by my calculations. That is all I sell my selections on - their record over four seasons.

The latest numbers, up to last weekend (this weekend's numbers are not yet updated, but six winners from 17 will only improve the overall numbers slightly) are:

This season, across the top five leagues, 25.8% of matches have ended as draws (322 from 1246), an implied price of 3.87.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a tipster. The reason I sell my selections is that it is a lot of work to generate the selections each week, and sharing with others doesn't hurt me. My selections are not price sensitive in the same way that a 20-1 horse tip might be. I believe they have an edge, proven over four seasons, but concede that the edge is worth more to Premium Charge payers than non-PC payers. If anyone feels the edge is too tight and doesn't think they are value, then that's absolutely fine - don't subscribe.

The FTL table is supposed to be a bit of fun, to allow anyone who wants to put selections up and I accept the prices they often give me without question. Who knows if they are actually attainable? Several don't even give me a bookmaker name, and Ian Erskine's lay the draw selections are literally priceless. All it is intended to do is give a broad comparison between different selections and individuals. I have never suggested that it should be used for any serious betting.

All in all, while it's not unexpected, it's quite disappointing to see how much negativity there is in the betting world. It's something that Ian Erskine has written about before, and while it is always good to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism, I think when someone has been around for as long as Ian and myself have been, it's not unreasonable to assume that the longevity is because we have been relatively successful.

One final comment on the XX Draws Service - and again to quote from the prospectus - "I’m not doing this for the money, and losses will hurt me more than any subscribers. Quite honestly, I enjoy the challenge of finding value in the betting markets. Football is not an easy sport to make money from. It’s hugely popular, and the statistics are studied by millions. Finding value is not easy, but I believe that I have found an edge with these selections, at least for the time being. Backing the draw is unfashionable, but that is exactly why there is value. No one watches a game cheering for the draw, so it is under bet. I love goalless matches – I call them the ‘perfect’ draw. The supposed success of “Lay The Draw” as a system also works in our favour. Plus, in a match where the two teams are equally fancied, money comes in on both teams, yet while logic should mean that the draw price shortens, it rarely drops below 3.15 (one end of season match in 2011 was priced at 3.05 in France). If the price is under 3.0 as is sometimes the case in Serie A towards the end of the season, I ignore these. By offering these selections, I am not hurting myself. As mentioned, the draw price is very robust, and because the ratings are mine, my bets will be first in the queue anyway!"

Average Guy very kindly drew my attention to a thread in my honour, initiated by old friend WhyAlwaysMe. A couple of his comments went unpublished because they were either insulting, "so wiseguy"... negative or asked a previously answered question, (when people don't actually read your reply, it gets a little tiresome). The negativity I mentioned earlier is there in the thread of course, as well as some misinformation. (Spelling mistakes and apostrophe catastrophes left untouched). Here are a few selected highlights and my response:

...is offering a tipping service whereby members pay a £149 fee in return for Cassini's selection's, which are mainly draws and various Unders markets on socer matches.

Fact (from prospectus):  As the name implies, the XX Draw Selections are matches where my ratings suggest that the draw price is too high (underpriced), and thus value. The draw. Backing unders should also be profitable, but this is a draw service and how you play the selections is up to subscribers and their tolerance for risk. As I say in the prospectus, quite clearly: "Risk-tolerant investors can thus choose to back the draw, while more risk-averse investors can back the Under 2.5 goals only, or blend the two investments."

Also, small correction - most subscribers paid a bargain £99 - returning subscribers from 2011-12 got this rate, as did early-birds subscribing before July if I remember rightly.

He is claiming to have a big edge of 5-6% on the draw after the comm and he provides about 300 selection's per season.

Fact: 359 selections so far this season, and nowhere in the prospectus do I claim to have a 5-6% edge on the draw after commission (or before commission for that matter).

[Funny that the 'big edge of 5-6%' was written by the man claiming that it "is possible and safer to identify winners at 3.0 that have a ‘true’ price of 2.0, (a 50% edge), than it is to identify draws at a smaller edge." 50% is a big edge, but even he has backed down from that now.]

I put in the historical record of these selections and say: I am confident that these selections will remain profitable in the long-term, but can give no guarantee that any given weekend, or even given month, will be profitable. The draw prices on these selections typically have plenty of value built in, so if kick-off approaches and you are not yet matched, then taking the available price is still value. The number of selections will vary. Some weeks there may be none. The number of selections will be determined solely by the numbers. I do not feel obliged to offer a selection if there are none, nor will I cap the number of selections on any weekend. Such artificial restrictions make no sense. 

Using The Selections

How you use these selections is up to you. I usually back these selections as single bets, but I can see the appeal of accumulators. Some people may choose to trade out after a certain time, while others may stay in for the full 90+ minutes. Some may want to take me on, and oppose the selections. That’s fine too. These are simply selections that the numbers suggest offer big value on the draw. Unlike most services, I do not analyse the games in great detail and form a subjective opinion. I simply enter in the teams, and the spreadsheet spits out the numbers. If there has been some major news leading up to the game that makes you uncomfortable backing the draw, I won’t be offended. This may be the case towards the end of the season, where one team might have nothing to play for, the other team everything to play for, or at the start of a season where you may feel, not unreasonably, that form from May might not necessarily carry through to August (especially if there’s a new manager in place or team line-ups are dramatically different). 

All pretty open, honest and realistic, if I do say so myself. WhyAlwaysMe thinks he's onto something new, writing in a comment that "Anichebe failed a fitness test in the morning, Everton drifted and the draw came in." See what I wrote above. These things will happen.

An Obviously Faked Screenshot

Those of you who have known me for a while, will know that I don't take myself too seriously, and like to play the 'arrogant bastard' card. It's too bad that despite my confessing this from time to time, people continue to take me way too seriously. Just recently there was the:

which drew this response:

The highlighted part in the second post shows what I did not like about his blog, and it obviously has not changed since I was last time there...

and this:

I don't like his musings either! I also noticed the comment Wednesday pointed out and am of the same opinion as him. Cassini comes across as one of those arrogant, whining Americans that litter yank tv programs and is the reason I don't watch anything American, apart from Quincy! I don't know if Cassini is American, but that's how he comes across to me!

Great stuff, although I'm really surprised that anyone really takes my jesting seriously. Lighten up boys.

I saw that comment and thought the same. What a knob he is!

Perhaps Montenegrins don't quite get the English (or is that American?) sense of humour (or is that humor?) Oh dear.  

Then there was this:

My usual thought when it comes to paid tipping services is: if he indeed made as much money from betting/trading as he claims, he wouldn't need to sell his service.

With paid service, he has to maintain it, to keep database of users, to prepare mails with selections, to cope with users' questions and complaints, and all that for 149 GBP, while he claimed to be making thousands off the trading. Why not simply continue with trading, if it's so successfull, without all that hassle that tipping service requires?

As I said earlier, the time consuming part is something I do for myself anyway. As for 'needing' to sell anything, no I don't need to at all. I must have the best subscribers in the world because questions and complaints are next to non-existent. The occasional request for a second email is about it. There's no hassle. Sending out an email usually once a week in no way conflicts with my trading, which in no way conflicts with my day job, and in between I find time to write the occasional blog post.

Finally, someone (Articinvest) who speaks some sense, and can see it all for what it really is:

Too much skepticism here imo. I’m a keen reader of Cassinis posts. I think he is brilliant and he has for sure given me ideas that have proven themselves as +EV after I have worked on them.
Personally I have both bought and sold picks and information. I don’t really understand the standard phrase “why don’t the people selling picks keep the value for themselves?”

The markets are bigger and the customers a brighter. Nowadays I doubt you will have an easy task selling picks for the 1x2 marked. I actually ended up selling only AH picks in the same day marked. I’m nowhere near having the ability to keep all the value for myself because on these picks you can get on almost as much as you want.

So why not selling? I can increase my bank/pay my mortgage/travel without it costing me an extra effort. It takes me 3-4 minutes 2-3 days a week. Its 6-12 minutes weekly and in a good season like 2011 it gave my about 1/3 of the income from my day job (which is almost 40 hours a week). The hard work is already done when I bet the selections myself.

I guess I have bought 4-5 tips services over the last 10 years and 2-3 information services. All but one of the tips services have been really good investments. The information services have made me cut learning times by months if not years.

I’m glad such services exist.

Brilliant. Did you see that? Actually brilliant and modest, but... - oh hold on, people might take me seriously.

While we are being serious, which I am on occasion, as Articinvest says, if you read my blog you will pick up ideas that will prove themselves, and it is for this purpose that I started the blog - not to keep addressing the same silly questions from people who either can't read or can't understand the points people are making. There's no hidden agenda on this blog. After almost five years that should obvious. I don't need to blog, I don't need to sell any selections, and I don't need to bet on sports - it's all a hobby.

Whether or not you believe screenshots are faked or that I would spend five years making up stories is up to you, I really don't care. Odwyer, ever the idiot, writes:

At the end of the day, we'll never see any screen-shots from you will we?! Nothing really to back up what you say. And even if you did, it would probably be a one-off to suit you. It's just all talk on your part.

Really John? Have you read this blog? One can't win, as someone else writes (badly):

Oh, yes, and let me not forget his constant aftereventing about great wins, and ocassionally loses here and there, and, of course, regular reports about amount of PC he paid; everything followed by screenshots...

Hard to please everyone it seems. Anyway, enough time has been spent on this. If someone wishes to link this post to the thread, I would appreciate it. I don't use the Geek's Toy or the forum there, but it is clearly frequented by people far more successful than I could ever hope to be. They all know so much apparently and yet isn't it strange how they all flock to the world's number one sports betting blog? I am expecting 1,000 hits today. Let's go. 

Apocalypse Soon

There was a suggestion left here that:

The Sultan's last couple of blog posts look like a sales pitch to try and get someone to invest in him,and I cant see anybody foolish enough as he has never even proved he is a long time winner.

The simple fact is if he was a winner he had all last season to compound some of his tennis winnings ready for this etc. etc.

The guy needs a reality check and he's already on the downward spiral by blaming the Odwyer syndrome.

A little harsh to compare the Sultan with Odwyer perhaps, and I'm sure the Sultan is smart enough to understand that outside funding is not the answer.

He is well aware of the additional stress that trading for others brings, writing:

I had been trading relatively stress-free for 9 months, yet that was changed instantly as soon as the pressure was turned up a notch. It wasn't that I was worried about losing the money because the deal was that I was not liable for any losses. In theory, that should've made trading easier and more relaxed (and that was indeed the case once I'd got a few wins on the board) but it was the strain of knowing that if I failed to make enough profit to impress the syndicate, I would be dropped and lose out on a fantastic opportunity, that was the real pressure.

And on the subject of performance anxiety back in February 2012, the Sultan wrote:

This 'performance anxiety' reached a peak at the time, exacerbated by the fact that I 'needed' the money but my bank size was tiny and money management poor. Today, I enjoy trading much more because I have a style of trading that suits me better and this twinned with much better bank management, no complete reliance on the income source and a risk-averse strategy, mean that I am able to trade without anxiety.

I guess somewhere between then and now came the 'complete reliance' on the income and thus the withdrawing of all the profits. To me, it seems that it is at that point that the problems began. Either expenses increased or wins decreased. As several, including myself, have said, the answer is simple - stop withdrawing all the profits, and let the bank build. 

Harry Haller wrote:

As other guy said, I really think you should try to leave a small amount of your earnings in the bank each week/month. Even a seemingly small amount like 100 will do I think, as compounding really is a powerful beast!

As someone who has made just the one deposit of £100 and didn't make his first withdrawal until over two years later when the bank was larger than would ever be needed in five figures, I can attest to the merits of leaving your bank alone.

No one in their right mind would hand over money to an unknown third-party to trade with. As others have said, the sports trading markets are not scalable for a start, and even if that extra capital could be used, some real evidence of likely profitability would be required. The plaintiff Odwyer cry of "I know I can do it" doesn't cut it when it comes to seeking investment, and while the Sultan doesn't do the P&L thing, one reason why his blog stands out, he did reveal that January's profit was "approximately £500".  Honesty, but hardly a sales pitch.

Speedwave, a name from the past, posted a rather bizarre comment over at the Sultan's blog:

You don't have the "devil" inside like Cassini and Mark Iverson have. You cannot make money by been honest and trying to find something logic in the market, every day you think you know what you have to do next time, but that day will never come. The only way to make money is to feed yourself with hate and attack, you have to be a snake in this, you have to wait for hours and do nothing, every day. It's a dark world, I admit it. There is no place for correct fair pattern here. Don't listen to anyone but yourself. Forget this world, forget all the ''friends'' you have here, forgot all the interviews you have made. They are humans. Did you get any real help from them but advices to keep trying ? What to try ? Your soul is pure, all those thoughts that keep coming over and over again are the ones you should follow. That day is close. May not be today but it's coming, the day when you shut down this blog and live a happy normal life you deserve it.

I'm not sure what most of that is about, to be honest, but apparently myself and Mark are possessed, filled with hate and poised to attack like snakes, while the Sultan's soul is pure. The end of the world is nigh. All very strange.

He's true that patience is key though, and if part of this refers to the unlikelihood that you can find an edge in such a well traded sport as tennis, well I tend to agree. But I'm not sure he actually said that.  

Planning And Patience

The above screenshots are an example of what I was talking about earlier in the week when looking at draw prices. One selection this weekend was the Norwich City v Everton game, and you can see from the first screenshot that I wanted the 3.6. Very rarely do I take what is on offer. The extra ticks you can achieve by being organised and patient add up over time, so with the Back at 3.55 and the Lay at 3.6, with a couple of days before the event, there's no need to settle for .05 worse.

The fourth screenshot was taken shortly before kick-off, and in just a few hours between being matched at 3.6, the price was 3.4/3.45. The screenshot in the middle is from Peter Nordsted's Weekly Insider sent out at around 11am suggesting a price of 3.48 so the challenge of fairly recording prices is clear. In my records I record the 3.6 I was matched at, but is it fair to record Peter's Drawmaster selection at 3.48?

We both had the same selection, but time makes a difference. As mentioned previously, the robustness of the draw price means that it 'saw-blades' (final screenshot) rather than trends so that you don't see the wild swings from say 3.8 to 3.1 that WhyAlwaysMe was talking about last week.

Something else he mentioned was "why is commission not included in the FTL table?", a subject that was well covered a little over a year ago. It would make sense if everyone used Betfair and paid the same commission, but that is not the case. For anyone new to trading or betting, it would be well worth spending a few hours reading through this blog from the start. Not all 1,500 posts are brilliant, but enough are to make it a worthwhile exercise.

Sultan's Off Wins

My friend the Sultan sounds a little down right now. My Trading Solo post from the weekend covered the topic of whether you are better of trading for yourself or trading for others, and for me, it's a no-brainer. If you have an edge, use it for yourself, build up your bank, and your balance will at some point grow to more than you need for day-to-day trading. 

The Sultan writes that he is "treading water when I could be freestyling into the distance" but turning £20 into £40 is going as fast as turning £2,000 into £4,000. The famous Odwyer (" It's frustrating because I know I can make this pay big if I had some kind of stability, but I've not had that for a good year now") claimed that bank size was his edge, which showed the same lack of comprehension of value as WhyAlwaysMe has shown in more recent times. 

So why is The Sultan treading water? Trading is very much a mental game, and if the doubts are there, which seems to be the case, then that negativity will come to the surface.

As long-time readers will know, I think it's a terrible idea to do sports trading full-time. There are so many positives for trading as a part-time hobby while you work full-time and so many negatives against trading full-time. The Sultan himself is well aware of this, writing in 2011:

The one thing you cannot experience as a part-timer is the pressure of trading being your sole source of income. You may think you have felt pressure when losing or coming close to losing your whole bank but trust me, it pales into insignificance compared to the pressure a full-timer feels. You might be gutted at losing a bank you've been trading with but in the back of your mind, you know it's not the end of the world. You know you can always replace it when the next pay-cheque arrives or start saving up again and return in a few months for another shot. It doesn't usually affect your life that badly. If you lose your bank as a full-timer, you could be struggling to pay the bills, keep a roof over your head or even put food on the table. And as you have seen on this very blog, that pressure, that anxiety, that stress, can cause you to do things that perhaps you thought you had cut out of your trading long ago. You may have been raking it in as a part-timer but when things start to get tricky and it's your only source of income, will you still remain steadfast in your approach?

To trade optimally, the money needs to be irrelevant. Fund the bank with money you will never need and leave it alone. Now the Sultan writes:

I want to make some serious cash or I'm really not that bothered. I always thought that was going to happen one day and I'm almost certain that it would if I could only compound my profits. But that isn't going to happen this year and I don't know if I can continue treading water for another year, when I could be doing something else. Without investment, I'm stuck and although I've been doing well, everything I earn goes straight back out.

"Everything I earn goes straight back out!". That is not my definition of  "I've been doing well". That's my definition of 'keeping the wolves from the door'. And unfortunately those withdrawals do not offset the Premium Charge which is only a matter of time for most full-time traders. When you have a full-time job, you make enough to pay the bills, and probably have a little left over. When your full-time job is trading, there is no guarantee that you will even cover your bills. Again in 2011, the Sultan questioned his own decision to go pro:

I've made a lot of mistakes in my trading life but none of them were more damaging than my decision to go full-time too early. I wish I'd waited at least another year. I should have given it 2 full tennis seasons, if only to see how the whole tour works and how it affects you as a trader. I was fortunate in that I had some fairly large savings that I could dig into if it didn't work out as expected. I would urge anyone thinking of going full-time to have a big chunk saved up for emergencies. And that's just the start of what you'll need in preparation.

And as for the pressure of trading for your main income:

I always liken the move from part-time to full-time as similar to a penalty shoot-out. The best players will be slotting home penalties in training as if it's the easiest thing in the world. But when it comes to the real thing, in front of thousands of fans, maybe millions on TV and with the added pressure that you are one mistake away from being knocked out of a major tournament, the pressure plays games with your mind. All of a sudden, those 12 yards to goal seem like a mile, the posts have shrunk and the keeper has grown a metre. There is no way of preparing for that pressure with football and I don't think you can with trading either. Not unless you used your entire month's wages to trade with - now THAT would give you some idea!

For me, it seems there are so many opportunities to trade at nights and weekends that there is no need to give up a full-time job. You may miss a few events, but anything important and you can take the day off, or "work" from home that day. Most jobs have other benefits too, and you shouldn't underestimate the loss of future benefits and earnings, or the challenges of re-entering the full-time world after taking a break.

It's never pleasant losing a big wedge, but as the Sultan says, "in the back of your mind, you know it's not the end of the world." It's just a few points lost in a never-ending video game, and when you have a proven edge, the points will come back. 

I wish the Sultan the best of luck, (his blog is one of the best out there), but don't accept that outside funding is the answer. He has answered his own question really - he needs to keep more in the bank so that he can slowly build up his balance and stakes, and not take out everything he earns. Use some of those 'fairly large savings' perhaps to cover daily living expenses while the bank grows? If you get down to the point where the emergency fund of 3 months living expenses is reached, then if the bank hasn't grown by enough, it's time to take a fresh look and re-evaluate options. I can't imagine the pressure of trading in that situation - it must almost as bad as when the end of the month is coming. Final week of February starts today!